Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2011: Difference between revisions
promote 2 |
pr4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1972 Summer Paralympics medal table/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: Chinese books)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Croatian submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (L)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (L)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of France national football team captains/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of France national football team captains/archive1}} |
Revision as of 16:13, 13 July 2011
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:13, 13 July 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Basement12 (T.C) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on similar Olympic and Paralympic articles that already have FL status, particularly 1968 Summer Paralympics medal table and the comments at that FLC review. - Basement12 (T.C) 11:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment – Only suggestion I have is that the abbreviation for National Paralympic Committee could be taken advantage of in the Medal table text, by making the relevant bit "is an entity represented by an NPC." As long as you already have the abbreviation, why not use it? Don't have any other complaints.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, abbreviated to NPC - Basement12 (T.C) 22:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Can't see any outstanding issues. Miyagawa (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I looked it over carefully and, despite my best efforts, can find nothing wrong with it. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Everything is great, just answer these two:"Some athletics and swimming events did not award silver or bronze medals", can you specifically mention those events. This whole article is about the medal table, so any discrepancy in the medal categories should be answered.
- That would be beyond the scope of this list -as you say this article is about the medal table, listing every event in which only one or two medals were awarded is no more relevant here than listing every event where a gold medal was won. If it were only one or two events (as at modern day Games where 3 medals are almost always awarded) then it could be done like this but at the early Paralympics events with only one or two entrants were very common - Basement12 (T.C) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"also known as the XXI World Games for the Paralysed", then what was the official name of the Games.
- As far as I can tell it was known as both the Paralympic Games and International Stoke Mandeville Games (aka World Games for the Paralysed). The Games took place every year serving jointly as the Paralympics every 4 years (see the list at IWAS World Games) - Basement12 (T.C) 18:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Bill william comptonTalk 04:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Satisfy all the criteria, great job as always! — Bill william comptonTalk 00:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:13, 13 July 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of manuscripts of old Chinese books that have been designated as National Treasures of Japan. Three types of manuscripts are included: those created in China, those copied in Japan and some of the oldest printed editions from the Song Dynasty. The list has been modelled on other featured National Treasure lists. bamse (talk) 15:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Well-detailed, quality page, which from what I can see satisfactorily meets the criteria for a Featured List. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Thanks a lot for your thorough feedback. I addressed almost all of your comments following your suggestions and replied to those that I did not address (i.e. to two comments) above. bamse (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] One more from taking a look at the changes: in note 2, the order of "blank" and "two" should probably be switched. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment This is an exemplary list and really commendable work. Main qualms are about the bibliography formatting. There are ghost ref tags, inconsistency in inclusion of publisher location, and some wikilinking errors for the {{harvnb}} template. Could you brush through the references once more please? — Legolas (talk2me) 06:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have a look at it. What do you mean by "ghost ref tags"? bamse (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed one </ref>. Is that what you meant by "ghost ref tags"? bamse (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as far as I can see. Removed one excessive "</ref>", removed location of publisher from one bibliography and all the {{harvnb}} links should work now. Please let me know if something else needs to be fixed. bamse (talk) 11:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes its done as I can see, however another query. Some of the books have just the year of the publication while some have exact dates. As far as I can see for them, Google books did not list any date when they were written. Can you please correct them? — Legolas (talk2me) 05:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I used this tool for creating the bibliography. Honestly I don't know where it takes the month/day information from, so I asked the creator of the tool (who has not been active on wikipedia since May 7, 2011). Since year information is sufficient and since the tool sometimes created wrong dates (day=32), I got rid of the months/days. bamse (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent page. Wish more lists were this thorough and organized. One suggestion: get rid of red-links in the references section. I'd suggest getting rid of the red-links in the list itself, but I suppose there's a good chance someone will eventually write articles on those places, most of which I believe, are temples. Primary editor is to be commended for compiling this list of written works. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As for the red links, these are temples and museums which house or own National Treasures and as such are relevant and will get their wikipedia article eventually. I am planning to create articles for all shrines/temples/museums that have National Treasures of Japan. In fact, I recently wrote Omura Shrine and Anraku-ji (Ueda). It'll take some time before all of them have a wikipedia article though. In order not having to put back wikilinks later, I'd prefer to leave the red-links in there unless that's an issue for FLC. bamse (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this narrow issue, I have to disagree with Boneyard90. I would have thought that Wikipedia:Red link suggests a kind of fuzzy logic? In each instance, Bamse is likely able to explain and defend the red link as a positive element in the current state of this article. For example, in the Japanese manuscripts section, the red link for Daigaku-ryō caught my attention. This was an article I intended to create some time ago -- in fact, I thought I did create this article at the same time I developed Yushima Seidō; but I was distracted. The red link served as a reminder and I immediately set about creating a stub ... which is a good example of what a red link is supposed to do. --Tenmei (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In terms made specific at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, the first impression of this list article is that the structure and style of the table are congruent with other other featured National Treasure lists. We have already seen how minor problems of format accessibility or ease of use have been worked out in the other National Treasure articles which Bamse has developed.
- I wonder if one or two sentences might be added to the last paragraph of the introduction of this article (and its corollaries)?
- The comprehensiveness of the current list is explained clearly, but I wonder if some kind of caveat like {{dynamic list}} would be perceived as timely? as an invitation? as a distraction? Some variation on these words is worth considering: "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries."
- I also wonder if the overview of this subject would be enhanced by a sentence which explained that the official listings do evolve as part of an on-going process? Compare National Treasures of Japan#Designation procedure. In other words, the Agency for Cultural Affairs is likely to designate one or more additions to this list in 2012 or at some other time in the future. Compare National Research Institute for Cultural Properties.
- I wonder if a "See also" section should mention Independent Administrative Institution National Museum, Tokyo Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara Research Institute for Cultural Properties, etc.?
- These suggestions present issues of judgment and focus. --Tenmei (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your suggestions and support. As for {{dynamic list}}, my understanding is that this template is for lists that are inherently incomplete (List of female tennis players,...) and whose inclusion criterion often is the existence of a wikipedia article. This list however is complete and in fact is not changing on short timescales. In the 21st century, between one and five National Treasures were designated each year. There are 13 Lists of National Treasures of Japan, so any of these lists is updated on average only about once in 4 years due to new designations. I added a see also section per your suggestion (didn't know we had an article on "Independent Administrative Institution National Museum" and in fact had never heard of this title before). As for your second suggestion, it is kind of implied by the language and tense used in the intro: "...have been designated...", "...items are selected...". Do you think that a more direct statement is necessary? bamse (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No changes are necessary. These suggestions only demonstrate engagement with an open-ended question -- musing, speculation, wondering about what might be marginally better? Your good judgment is unquestioned.
As you know, the last sentence of National Treasures of Japan#Designation procedure is: "In the 21st century, between one and five properties were designated every year.-- 国指定文化財 データベース, Database of National Cultural Properties.
Is it likely (or possible) that a reader might profit from reading a variant of this sentence at the end of the last paragraph of the introduction? It's just a question? "No" is a reasonable and acceptable answer. --Tenmei (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, it would be good to have a sentence like that referring to "writings: Chinese books" only (i.e. to the items in this list). However, due to the small number of Chinese books NT (56 versus more than 1000 NT as a whole), I feel that we can't have a meaningful statement like this because of a lack of statistic samples. (Does this make sense?) bamse (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's agree that this is a trivial issue; and yes, I defer to your good judgment. In the future -- perhaps in 2012, we may revisit this if you or I stumble across an on-point citation in a credible source? --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed! bamse (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's agree that this is a trivial issue; and yes, I defer to your good judgment. In the future -- perhaps in 2012, we may revisit this if you or I stumble across an on-point citation in a credible source? --Tenmei (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, it would be good to have a sentence like that referring to "writings: Chinese books" only (i.e. to the items in this list). However, due to the small number of Chinese books NT (56 versus more than 1000 NT as a whole), I feel that we can't have a meaningful statement like this because of a lack of statistic samples. (Does this make sense?) bamse (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No changes are necessary. These suggestions only demonstrate engagement with an open-ended question -- musing, speculation, wondering about what might be marginally better? Your good judgment is unquestioned.
- Thanks for your suggestions and support. As for {{dynamic list}}, my understanding is that this template is for lists that are inherently incomplete (List of female tennis players,...) and whose inclusion criterion often is the existence of a wikipedia article. This list however is complete and in fact is not changing on short timescales. In the 21st century, between one and five National Treasures were designated each year. There are 13 Lists of National Treasures of Japan, so any of these lists is updated on average only about once in 4 years due to new designations. I added a see also section per your suggestion (didn't know we had an article on "Independent Administrative Institution National Museum" and in fact had never heard of this title before). As for your second suggestion, it is kind of implied by the language and tense used in the intro: "...have been designated...", "...items are selected...". Do you think that a more direct statement is necessary? bamse (talk) 12:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:13, 13 July 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): GregorB and Timbouctou (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and closely resembles similar FL articles such as List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film and List of German submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. The article was originally created in March 2008 and has been worked on recently by User:GregorB and myself. All comments are welcome. Timbouctou (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Kebeta:- IMO, the lead could be a bit longer.
- The last sentence of second paragraph, and the last paragraph of the lead should be cited.
- There are no dab links, but one ext links don't work - see The Motion Picture Credits Database. I propose that you just delete this one.
- You will need to have a proper "alt text" for the image of Vinko Brešan.
- Overall, nice work by you two guys. Regards, Kebeta (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a couple of quick responses:
- I feel that the lead is about right - will consider this one, though.
- Good point about the citations. Will be provided.
- MP Database Credits URL fixed.
- Not sure about the alt text - is this actually a requirement? The other corresponding FL-class lists do not have it.
- Thanks for the input... GregorB (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update:
- Reference added to the second paragraph.
- Alt text for the image provided.
- Reference for the third paragraph is pending. GregorB (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The offending claim has been removed, and the content of the last two paragraphs has been rearranged somewhat. Citation-wise, the intro should be fine now. GregorB (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks fine now in the article, except here it doesn't - it shows one dead link, although it's not 'dead'? --Kebeta (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the link is not actually dead but I removed it as the database is not really relevant to this particular list (the database has almost no information about past foreign language film nominees). Timbouctou (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: all my concerns have been dealt with.--Kebeta (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the link is not actually dead but I removed it as the database is not really relevant to this particular list (the database has almost no information about past foreign language film nominees). Timbouctou (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks fine now in the article, except here it doesn't - it shows one dead link, although it's not 'dead'? --Kebeta (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The offending claim has been removed, and the content of the last two paragraphs has been rearranged somewhat. Citation-wise, the intro should be fine now. GregorB (talk) 11:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update:
- Here is a couple of quick responses:
Comments –
In the third paragraph of the lead, there are two instances of faulty hyphen usage (not "Croatian-based"; the ones after that). To fix them, you can make them either a spaced en dash (smaller dash) or an unspaced em dash (bigger dash). Depends on your own preferences.In the original title column, Cudnovate zgode Segrta Hlapica doesn't seem to be sorting in the proper order, unless it's meant to be sorted by the word that starts with z. The diacritics at the start of the title may be responsible for that. May need a sort template of some sort to correct it if necessary.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comments. Both issues fixed. I replaced hyphens with spaced en dash and I used template:hs to fix sorting order in the original title column. I also fixed entries for "A Wonderful Night in Split" and "The Blacks" in the English title column so that the sorting ignores articles "a" and "the" at the beginning of titles. Timbouctou (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment on the name of the organization that selects these films. It looks, from what's on the talk page, as if a Wikipedian translated the name of this organization themselves. And then the initials obviously don't match. I assume they represent the name in the original -- but then there's no mention of what that is... Honestly, I don't know the style guidelines on this, but I'd like to see it resolved before I can pledge my support. Bobnorwal (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The organisation's full native name is Hrvatsko društvo filmskih djelatnika or HDFD for short, which literally translates as Croatian Association of Film Workers. Since an official translation of their name does not seem to exist there are several variants used in English, and Film Artists' Association of Croatia seems to be the most common [4], [5], [6]. I've added the full native name to explain where HDFD comes from. Timbouctou (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, then... good job, all in all! Bobnorwal (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment overall, the article appears well written, comprehensive but not overwhelming, containing a properly weighted lead. In those terms the first three FL criteria are in my opinion met. I would prefer to see the last sentence of the second paragraph cited - the references are already there in the table, but still... Otherwise the nomination seems fine to me.--Tomobe03 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I'm not sure about that. The last sentence of the second paragraph would require eight references which would make it look like an overkill. Besides, the lede is just a summary of the body per WP:LEAD and shouldn't require referencing if what it states is supported by sources in the body. Timbouctou (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, WP:LEADCITE does provide for omission of citations in the lead on "case by case basis" if there is such a consensus. I personally don't think this to be a contentious issue really. Should a handy source amalgamating the information become available I suggest using it in this place, just to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.
- Support, as I see no other issue left to address at this point. Good job.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support--Cheetah (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:01, 8 July 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Current open nomination has three supports and no open comments. As always, concerns to be expediently addressed. We're past the halfway point (this is list 10 of 18 in the series). — KV5 • Talk • 13:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - thought I'd take this opportunity to learn a bit about how to read baseball stats!
- How can I discover that "Lush also made more than 30% of his career appearances with Philadelphia as a first baseman," from ref 22 please? It's not a challenge to your statement, more assistance to a non-expert (me) on how to find that out from the ref.
- Lajoie has 1896 to 1900, isn't that five seasons? His caption says four seasons.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironic that the answer to question 1 is math, while the problem with question 2 is that I can't do it.
- I've fixed LaJoie. As to Lush, it's a simple math problem, just requiring some addition and then division, as well as knowing where to look. On Lush's page at Baseball-Reference, there is a table entitled "Standard Fielding", which lists games played by position in each season. From 1904 through the midpoint of 1907 (all the portions labeled PHI for Philadelphia), Lush played in 64 games at first base (62 in 1904 and 2 in 1906), 54 games at pitcher (7 in '04, 2 in '05, 37 in '06, and 8 in '07), and the rest in the outfield.
- The games at each outfield position are designated in the second "G" column of that table (to the right) as, for example, "0-6-16", meaning 0 games in left field (the leftmost number), 6 in center field, and 16 in right field. In sum, Lush played 51 games in right field and 11 games in center field for the Phillies. 64 1B, 54 P, 51 RF, and 11 CF equals 180 total games; 64/180 = 35.5%, and 54/180 = 30%. As per the footnote, "players are listed at a position if they appeared in 30% of their games or more during their Phillies career", so even though Lush played almost as many games in right field as he did at pitcher, he didn't break the bright-line criterion (there are very few players who break the line at three positions), and his contributions on the pitcher's mound were arguably greater due to the no-hitter he threw.
- If I've jargoned you out, let me know. — KV5 • Talk • 01:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's fine, it's clearly not straight-forward for us non-experts! Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Didn't spot any issues with this list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My only nitpick would be that Lopata's image doesn't synch width-wise with the others. Not sure if that's cause for removal. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:01, 8 July 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): JSRant Away 03:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the required featured list criteria and is important to its subject giving the importance of several of the players on the list. JSRant Away 03:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments quick ones...
|
- I would reduce the mildly dubious section on a captain's duties here, and increase that which is relevant to France.
- Will take care of this when I got more time. — JSRant Away 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the section. Doesn't that make the lead a little short though for a FLC? . — JSRant Away 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, it does seem short now, at just one paragraph. You could use another para which summarises the history section, e.g. identify first, most recent, most capped, most successful, least successful captains in the lead too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of a couple of those mention. Most recent is a tough one because, as of right now, there is no permanent captain. It is currently being rotated at the moment. — JSRant Away 23:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes, it does seem short now, at just one paragraph. You could use another para which summarises the history section, e.g. identify first, most recent, most capped, most successful, least successful captains in the lead too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the section. Doesn't that make the lead a little short though for a FLC? . — JSRant Away 21:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will take care of this when I got more time. — JSRant Away 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
One more from reference 35, which I missed the first time around: the contraction "haven't" should be removed in favor of "have not". Actually, I think this and reference 36 would be more accurately listed as notes, to distinguish them from the citations. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support no immediate issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. After a read today and a read yesterday, I don't see any issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:21, 7 July 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): — Legolas (talk2me) 16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a complete list of the awards and nominations received by American recording artist Madonna, till date. It has been carefully structured alphabetically according to the awards and contains details about what she won, when etc. Hence with the consensus of my fellow reviewers, I would like to see the list promoted to a featured lists status. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- RIAA in ref 1 should be linked
- Done.
- "Flash" in ref 16 should not be capitalized
- Done.
- Who's the publisher for ref 41
- Added.
- Same for refs 109-114
- Added, except for El Pais, because it is a self-publishing company like The New York Times, The Washington Post etc.
- "Till date, Madonna has won" -> To date, Madonna has won
- Done.
- Unlink AllBusiness.com in ref 91 as its already linked in ref 73
- Done.
- Same for TEC Awards in ref 120
- Done.
All in, it's an impeccable list! Crystal Clear x3 10:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your helpful comments, I have addressed them. — Legolas (talk2me) 13:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crystal Clear x3 21:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Madonna a pop icon for pushing the boundaries of lyrical content in popular music and imagery in her music videos which became a fixture on MTV. < I would say Madonna became a pop icon
- Oh god, that was embarassing.
- The Billboard Music Video Awards is sponsored by Billboard magazine to honor artists and their music video < music videos
- Done,
- The MVPA Awards is held annually by Music Video Production Association to honor the best music videos in a variety of genre, style, and production a <shouldn't genre, style and production all be plural?
- Well at the end of the line I'm including categories so in that sense I did not include the plural of genre or style. Am I missing something?
- I see now it does make sense, just the way I read it at first made me think that something was wrong--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well at the end of the line I'm including categories so in that sense I did not include the plural of genre or style. Am I missing something?
- achievements in Mexican record industry < the Mexican record industry
That's all I currently see now. Great Work!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did my best. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this article is FL ready! Great Work. And thanks for clarifying--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any remaining issues, and I think it's now suitable for FL. Nice work. Miyagawa (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose for now – Very surprised to find myself here because I had high expectations for this list. It's as comprehensive as any list I've seen, and the referencing is of good quality. However, there are too many prose glitches at this time for me to be comfortable seeing a promotion here.
I'm certainly willing to re-evaluate things once these are looked at, and this is a list that will probably deserve a star when that happens. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more, which I just noticed while checking everything I capped: TEC Awards doesn't seem to be in the proper alphabetical order. For some reasons it's in the awards starting with S, in the body and infobox listing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:42, 4 July 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this one for a while, and think it is ready for feature list consideration. Massachusetts has a somewhat tangled early colonial history into which this list opens a window. Thanks in advance for your time and feedback. Magic♪piano 23:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from WFC |
---|
*Comment I'm preoccupied today, but of all the current nominations that I haven't looked at, this is one that I'm particularly keen to review. If I forget to return in the coming days, and this is in danger of being archived for lack of reviews, please could one of the directors ping me? —WFC— 12:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFC The list is excellent, and most of the nit-picking has already been covered. Just a few loose ends to clear up before I support.
|
Strong support an excellently constructed list that I implore others to review. I also think that this would be a great candidate at Today's featured list submissions once it passes; it deserves main page exposure, and I've yet to see another one like this. —WFC— 14:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent work -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, read through and found no issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): — Bill william comptonTalk 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The list contains sufficient entries, completely sourced, good accompanying prose, images, etc. In nutshell meets all of the FL criteria. I'll try my best to answer each query rises during the course of nomination, thanks. — Bill william comptonTalk 15:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations in the second paragraph in the medal table section should be positioned correctly, after a punctuation mark and leaving a space between it and the following text.
- Done
- "Sepaktakraw" should be two words "sepak takraw".
- Done
- In principle, support. Just a quick question: Is it standard to call the periodic Games with "this" rather than "these", as in the 3rd sentence? I understand it's one event, but it still sounds grammatically odd. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 09:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess there is no standard. Some use "these", while at many places "this" is also in use. Even on Wikipedia there is no fixed convention, I guess I'll have to discuss it with my project members (WikiProject Olympics), for now I've made it neutral with "This edition of the Games".
Resolved earlier comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose for now. I disagree that there is "good accompanying prose", at least right now. Some comments: Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved further comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (resolved 01:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC))[reply] |
---|
Still needs some language cleanup and copyediting, imo. Still numerous grammar issues and sentence structure problems. For the most part the minor issues have been settled but I'd like to see the article read more like readable English before supporting. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the whole line to "Athletes from 33 NOCs won at least one medal, and athletes from 23 of these NOCs secured at least one gold; athletes from eight NOCs did not win any medals", rephrased the line as you suggested and tried to rewrite the note (if still seems skimpy, then please change it as you think would be appropriate). WP:Access or more precisely WP:Color shouldn't be a problem as color is not the only method used to show the medalists, accessible symbol like * (gold medalist), † (silver medalist), ^ (bronze medalist) and # (no medal) are also used there. I'm really happy that you are helping in the improvement of this article and if still you need something there, then please mention. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, while noting that I am a member of a WikiProject this article falls under. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport –Only thing I see is that a few improvements could be made to the note, as was said earlier. First, add "the" before Olympic Council of Asia. Second, should "were" be before "never promoted in the medal table"? Third, I don't understand what "Nepal ranked with its only silver medal" means. That could use a re-write.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Made some changes.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support - I've taken the liberty of making a few minor changes to the dates in the references, otherwise all good. Afro (Talk) 22:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vinyl EPs are dead, but they had a life in the 1960s and even their own chart. Hopefully it is up to standard and maybe even slightly interesting. I realise I've been away, but assuming I haven't missed the introduction of any new "scope" or "alt text" type standards, I believe it is up to scratch. As always all reviews are greatly appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - no images..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add one because any actual EP or cover would be non-free and I don't think justified under WP:NFCC#8. As for artist images, all images of The Shadows are truly pathetic. Ditto for The Beach Boys (their article used copyrighted ones + a rubbish older one meeting Regan). I don't really want to use the Beatles image because it seems to be in the lead of many of my FLs and that's a bit boring. I've put in an image of someone who never got a UK number-one outside the EP chart, is that okay? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add one because any actual EP or cover would be non-free and I don't think justified under WP:NFCC#8. As for artist images, all images of The Shadows are truly pathetic. Ditto for The Beach Boys (their article used copyrighted ones + a rubbish older one meeting Regan). I don't really want to use the Beatles image because it seems to be in the lead of many of my FLs and that's a bit boring. I've put in an image of someone who never got a UK number-one outside the EP chart, is that okay? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Don't need to link The Beatles or Shadows twice in the lead."and a silver disc of recordings selling over 250,000 units." I feel "of" would be better as "to", like you have for gold discs, or perhaps "for" if you want something different.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done them. Thanks for catching those. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Mirror had stopped compiling their own and had begun publishing Record Retailer's charts in March 1962" - does this mean Record Mirror published their own, different, EP charts at some point? If so, what makes the ones shown here "official" and the RM ones not so.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope just an unclear statement. It was referring to the fact that RM used to publish singles & albums charts, then stopped them and began publishing RR's. I've made this explicit now. Hopefully it's okay. Good catch though, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good as far as I can see....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - welcome back by the way...!
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major issues, but perhaps the dab is unneeded, as no other country has had a EP chart? Suggest move to List of number-one EPs. Also the link of Highlights from South Pacific to South Pacific (film)#Song list is a bit confusing, as there is no mention of Highlights from South Pacific. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about that. There might not be a well publicised EP chart outside the UK but just a quick google search turned up this Billboard article from October 1957 mentions a Billboard weekly listing of the top 10 selling EPs and refers to it as "the new EP chart". Just because a Wikipedia article doesn't exist doesn't mean it didn't happen. There weren't any lists documenting the UKs most followed charts in the 60s until I made them. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and despite my seeming rant above I do appreciate your comments and support. I'll get onto the South Pacific thing some time soon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles other Grammy lists with FL status. I specifically request feedback regarding the necessity of the Nationality column for this particular list. The category honors Native American music--it appears to be the case that award-winning performing artists are American, though I could not find enough information about all of them to identify which Native American tribes they belong to, if any. It would certainly be possible for non-Native American artists to release a Native American music album and win, but given the award category has retired with all Native American recipients, is the column necessary? I would just state in the lead that all performing artists were American, but I cannot find a source making this claim. In my opinion, a Producer(s) column would be more appropriate than the Nationality column given the number of award-winning compilation albums in which producer(s) received an award. Thoughts? Thanks, as always, to reviewers for your assistance. Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Good point regarding nationality. I'm in no way an expert but would be mildly surprised if Native Americans consider their nationality to be "United States". Losing the column would look odd compared to the other Grammy lists though... I'm happy to switch it for Producers.
- Noted.
Waiting for other comments/feedback...--Another Believer (Talk) 01:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 17:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"the award was first presented to" perhaps reassert Grammy here because we've talked about other ceremonies in the meantime..
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comment: Ref #8 is a deadlink. Fix that and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support amazing like usual.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 19:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the criteria and will form part of a featured topic on Grand Tour winners of which this is the parent list. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Bill william comptonTalk 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
— Bill william comptonTalk 18:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Meets all the criteria, good job. — Bill william comptonTalk 18:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Will support upon this issue being fixed: "Lance Armstrong has won the most Tour de Frances, he won the competition seven times during his career." the comma should be a semicolon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to a semi-colon NapHit (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets FLC criteria. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Ref 3 the URL shouldn't be showing
- Ref 43 the retrieved date parameter needs fixed. Albacore (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Saw a couple more things when re-reviewing the list, both related to changes made. They should be easy to fix.
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- What's T1, T3, or T4 in the "rank" column? A key is needed.
The Multiple champions section lists seven golfers with 2 or more championships. At the same time the caption under Juli Inkster's photo states that she's one of only five golfers with 2 or more championships. What am I missing here?
--Cheetah (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the last one, and the first one I put it into sentence form, but tell me if I need to put it into the key as well. Thanks, SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did both.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence is not as necessary, but the key is what I was looking for. Also to make it complete, just add T3 and T5 because it's in the next table.--Cheetah (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I corrected it but put the key in the appropriate section(s) of the article for the content they are suppose to go with. Thanks for taking the time to make the article a better one today Cheetah.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence is not as necessary, but the key is what I was looking for. Also to make it complete, just add T3 and T5 because it's in the next table.--Cheetah (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did both.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Per WP:ABBR AP and UPI shouldn't be abbreviated unless previously spelled out. Afro (Talk) 17:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went and corrected it per the policy, and spelled it out in the first instances of both. I hope this meets with what you were hoping would be done, and by the way thanks for giving my article nomination a review.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It's the only fault I could find with the article. Afro (Talk) 21:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 08:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a very nice list--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 19:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:39, 1 July 2011 [19].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next team records article... probably get all of them to FL quality. Albacore (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Reworded.
Done.
Consistently width="60%", done. |
- "All statistics in this section are drawn from the following source.[29]" reads odd too. There is no following source. There's an inline citation.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could just have: Source:[x] indented by one colon in front of each table? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the single-season and career records, Batting statistics;[4] pitching statistics.[5] would do. Albacore (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't like the original sentence. The multiple refs are fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Albacore (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"No Padre holds a Major League Baseball or National League record for any of the below statistics." Then two sentences later, we hear about how Hoffman is the all-time saves leader. If I were a person without much knowledge of baseball, this would be incredibly confusing to me. I understand why it's not indicated as such, since he played some for other teams. However, there does need to be some further explanation of why he's not an MLB record-holder as a Padre alone; maybe a note would be the best option.
- Note added. Albacore (talk) 01:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the first table, "Extra–base hits" should have a hyphen and not the dash. Same for On–base percentage.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed.
I know that per WP:ACCESS, colored items need matching symbols. Along the same lines, wouldn't the items with symbols here need colors?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, per User:RexxS and this comment.
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that all applicable comments from Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Seattle Mariners team records/archive1 have been applied to this article as well. Albacore (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does "[last update]" mean in the refs? Is that really necessary?--Cheetah (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes up automatically in the Cite4Wiki tool; it's probably not necessary but doesn't really hurt or violate anything. Albacore (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the webpage is updated in 2012, will it automatically update the date to 2012 to stay true to its words (last update)?--Cheetah (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, removed. Albacore (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What if the webpage is updated in 2012, will it automatically update the date to 2012 to stay true to its words (last update)?--Cheetah (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
These are all things I probably should have seen and brought up in the Mariners' FLC, as re-reading that I see the same issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Would it be better to add the references in the Record column? Looks unprofessional as "source:[*]". Afro (Talk) 17:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How so? Albacore (talk) 17:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've implemented where I think they'd be best suited, feel free to revert if you disagree. Afro (Talk) 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undone, I don't see how Source[1] doesn't look professional. Albacore (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to me it'd be different if it was the information was derived from said source (like I've seen in many articles), but since its just Source and citation italicized it seems so out of place. Afro (Talk) 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undone, I don't see how Source[1] doesn't look professional. Albacore (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've implemented where I think they'd be best suited, feel free to revert if you disagree. Afro (Talk) 18:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ fake ref