Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2011: Difference between revisions
add two |
two more |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (P–Q)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 350cc Motorcycle World Champions/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 350cc Motorcycle World Champions/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:46, 15 September 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 17:46, 15 September 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another Phillies list: mind your Ps and Qs. — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:Comments - Very nice list, just two things
|
- Support, Very nice list. – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Chan Ho or Chan-Ho? Our article hyphenates. That is all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it hyphenated, and it was apparently moved in Dec 2010 (after this was moved out of userspace) without consideration for the sources. Baseball-Reference, ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo! Sports all have no hyphen, so I'm moving the article back. That should do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well played. Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is the only place I've seen it hyphenated, and it was apparently moved in Dec 2010 (after this was moved out of userspace) without consideration for the sources. Baseball-Reference, ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo! Sports all have no hyphen, so I'm moving the article back. That should do it. — KV5 • Talk • 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Found no issues with the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 4 September 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 17:46, 15 September 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s):
– HonorTheKing (talk), 03md, 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are nominating this for featured list because it meets all of the new FL criteria, and WP:ACCESS, All previous issues had been fixed, and please note that the older nomination was closed as stale nomination (no votes)
Please tell us whats need to be fixed and we will do so, and if you think it meets the criteria, please support it.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - HonorTheKing has done excellent work in getting this list to FL standard. I'm still bemused as to why it wasn't promoted the last two times it was nominated, seeing as it's almost exactly the same as the other two Manchester United players lists. – PeeJay 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments indeed, very close for me...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Support a nice list though a bit many pictures. Sandman888 (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Photo caption: "Oscar Linkson participated in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning 1909 title." Flow doesn't seem strong to me. Perhaps consider something like "in Manchester United's first FA Cup-winning side in 1909."?Kieran Richardson caption: "participated in Manchester United's League Cup-winning 2005–06 title." Again, the "winning" and "title" don't work well together. Suggest a similar edit to the one proposed above.- Would still like to see some feedback from other reviewers on whether MUFCInfo.com is a reliable source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the caption issues.
- About MUFCInfo.com, Will you consider this as a feedback, as seen Twitter can be considerd as RS at times -
- Steve Bartram - ManUtd.com contributing editor (you can see article from site here), he also wrote ManUtd related books, as you can see Simon & Schuster publishing book here, jointly with offical ManUtd
- He wrote on 20 Aug 2011 - "......@mufcinfodotcom for stats...", So if he wrote it, it means that ManUtd editor consider MUFCInfo as a RS.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 08:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Nick Coppack - ManUtd.com contributing editor and journalist (you can see article from site here)
- He wrote on 14 Sep 2011 - "If you fancy indulging in a few stats before this evening, you could do worse than visit mufcinfo.com. Run by @mufcinfodotcom.", He also mention MUFCInfo a RS.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks fine to me, I've had a little run through the prose and made a few very minor alterations but otherwise I think this is ready. Good work as always. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:46, 9 September 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 17:30, 15 September 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list fulfills the criteria to be a featured list. NapHit (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Staxringold talkcontribs 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Perhaps include a description of any notable championships (if there are any)? Jon Ekerold's narrow 3 point win (in a modern championship so that many more races) seems like there'd be a story. Or Kork Ballington's 57 point whalloping.
- I would but the official website doesn't delve into the history of the championships and I don't have any books on motorcycles unfortunately. Information is very thin on the ground regarding MotoGP. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review I've dealt with all your comments. NapHit (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, support (though that info would be nice). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 3 September 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 17:30, 15 September 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, all of my concerns have been resolved. Passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but if you remove the overlinking in the references column, for example "The Official Charts Company" or "London". Do not link the latter one, as common city.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Heyit's meI am dynamite 11:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed wikilinks to London. Thanks very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments good list, thanks to the other reviewers, just some last minute odds-and-sods....
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- What does
#
mean? Why isn't it in the key?
- The number next to each album shows that it is the nth album to reach number one, e.g. the 752 next to Don't Believe the Truth by Oasis shows that it is the 752nd album ever to top the UK Albums Chart. Putting it in the key would certainly be a good idea, I just can't think of any succinct way of describing it. Any suggestions?
- Well, saying "nth album to top UK Albums Chart" is a good start! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables should use MOS:DTT as guidance for accessibility using row and col scopes.
- Sorry, but I'm a bit confused - what do you mean by this?
- For the benefit of WP:ACCESS, you should add !scope="col" in front of each column heading, and !scope="row" in front of each row heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what, in this article, would the row heading be? The number? Artist? Single name? Whichever one it is will look different from the other cells, which would be annoying for people using standard visual media. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be the element of the row that is considered the most significant. And using "plainrowheaders" in the table class should prevent it looking too different. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But which of those is most significant? They all seem more or less equally important to me. Anyways, I'll leave it up to the article nominator. –Drilnoth (T/C) 10:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the album itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The album itself would make sense, since that's what's referenced in the article title. But there are ten "Album" headers in the list in total - do I add !scope="col" before each one, or only the top-most one? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an expert but since the header has been repeated, I would imagine that yes, you'd need to repeat the scope parameter. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent work! Crystal Clear x3 15:19, 12 September 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 21:11, 9 September 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trying something new... This is my first FLC that is not about Japanese National Treasures. I expanded this article from a simple list (with little value) to a sortable table. The design is stolen from List of World Heritage Sites in Africa. bamse (talk) 23:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment(s):
|
- At this point I would support promotion if another reviewer were to take the time and look this list over. Again, I haven't done a proper review, haven't read the lead, studied the references, etc. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Overall a very nice list, just some minor issues to look into. Arsenikk (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Thank you for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments (see above). bamse (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Nightw 12:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Night w:
This list looks of very high quality, and my comments are mostly merely suggestions based on pickiness.
Thanks for taking the time to review. I addressed all of your comments. I am not sure about which "single-word" figures you meant (see above), so I'd need more instructions from you before I can proceed. bamse (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Nightw 12:38, 9 September 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 21:11, 9 September 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it's the next article in the series. However, I have two major issues with this list that I would appreciate some input on. First (the more fixable of the two), the third paragraph of the lead is really weak, but I can't find anything else to add to it. Next, more problematic, is the fact that the Marlins season team records page doesn't list any team season records outside miscellaneous records, as opposed to, say, the Mariners team season records, which lists stats, not miscellaneous records. So, should I add the misc. records or not? On a related note "Individual single-game records" was changed to "team single-game records" due to a lack of single-game records. Albacore (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Apart from those quibbles its a great list. NapHit (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support great work, well done NapHit (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Slight opposeSupport First big thing, this may be the style so far for these lists but I hate the repeated use of "the holder" or "the holder of" in the image captions. First off it's massively passive voice, and second it just sounds awkward. Why, eg, "Josh Johnson, the holder of two career records for the Marlins" and not "Josh Johnson holds two career records for the Marlins". "Dan Uggla is tied for the Marlins' single-season extra base hits record" as opposed to "Dan Uggla, the co-holder of the single-season extra-base hits record", etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Albacore (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And looking at that Uggla entry... Why are tied-records listed twice (ie, Shutouts and Shutouts, XBH and XBH)? Why not simply span the record title across 2 rows? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done per ACCESS concerns specified in this comment. Albacore (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Huge amount of white space between end of tables and images. I think setting it to 80-85% would be better.PumpkinSky talk 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of. Albacore (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason 80% jacked up the layout on my screen, which is a standard screen, though 80% works on other lists, so I changed it to 76%.
Why is "baseball-reference.com." lower case but "Marlins.MLB.com" and "Retrosheet" upper case?PumpkinSky talk 23:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Decapped retrosheet; changed to MLB.com Albacore (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. PumpkinSky talk 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit iffy on why the tables are so wide. For the most part they could be thinned out, since there's not a huge amount of info in any columns. If it's to maintain consistency with other lists in this topic then I won't worry about it, but it did throw me off. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to maintain consistency; only changed List of Oakland Athletics team records. I'd like to hear what PumpkinSky has to say on this one. Albacore (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because before there was about a 3" white gutter between the tables and the photos--a huge waste of white space, it also makes for more scrolling as it forces the page to be longer. Not mention that much white space is hugely unattractive. They don't seem any wider than other list tables to me.PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because before there was about a 3" white gutter between the tables and the photos--a huge waste of white space, it also makes for more scrolling as it forces the page to be longer. Not mention that much white space is hugely unattractive. They don't seem any wider than other list tables to me.PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 3 September 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 21:11, 9 September 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe this list complies with the Featured List criteria as well as possible. It comprehensively covers every season that NK Maribor has played in a major tournament, and is factually accurate. It is also useful to football fans. Ratipok (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- nothing in the tables is sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And how would you like it to be sourced? Every statistics on the table is sourced by NK Maribor official website (I have changed it now to NK Maribor official website - Statistics in case it wasnt visible before), which is added bellow both tables so there is no reason to think that the information is not geniuine as every single information in the tables are verifiable with this source. The tables are based on similar (format) lists of both Manchester Premier League clubs, which both have sources bellow and not in the tables, for every separate season and statistics. List of Manchester City F.C. even has a similar source "MCFCStats" bellow their stats.Ratipok (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Place the sources under the references header with a subheading General, have a look at List of Luton Town F.C. seasons to see what I mean. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. In the near future there will also be a book published about history of the club and when that happens, I can add that as a general source as well (although the one used is reliable and covers every single season and match the club has played during their history).Ratipok (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the oppose !vote, will assess more fully later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. In the near future there will also be a book published about history of the club and when that happens, I can add that as a general source as well (although the one used is reliable and covers every single season and match the club has played during their history).Ratipok (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Place the sources under the references header with a subheading General, have a look at List of Luton Town F.C. seasons to see what I mean. NapHit (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - And how would you like it to be sourced? Every statistics on the table is sourced by NK Maribor official website (I have changed it now to NK Maribor official website - Statistics in case it wasnt visible before), which is added bellow both tables so there is no reason to think that the information is not geniuine as every single information in the tables are verifiable with this source. The tables are based on similar (format) lists of both Manchester Premier League clubs, which both have sources bellow and not in the tables, for every separate season and statistics. List of Manchester City F.C. even has a similar source "MCFCStats" bellow their stats.Ratipok (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I've gone through the table and made some changes but it is a lot better now. Two things I would ask you to do though is try and bring down the number of redlinks and the two images in the lead need alt text, other than that I think you've done a great job, well done. NapHit (talk) 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you. The redlinks will be fixed over time when articles about the club's season by season will be created (currently there are two) and when the same will be done with the lower leagues seasons of Yugoslavia (there is a task force working on that). Some of the footballers articles (the most important ones) will also be created.Ratipok (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
All in all a lot of work remaining to be done. — KV5 • Talk • 20:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 11:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 13:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Noticed a few of the things KV5 pointed out like the bolding and symbol issues, so I'll refrain from re-listing them below. If there are any repeated comments, I'm sorry; I tried to weed them out, but the review above covers a lot of ground.
|
- Comment (KV5&Giants2008): OK, thank you. I have changed most of the issues that KV5 expressed, I still have to do some things with the table though. I will also look into the comments from Giants2008, however, I will adress everything during the weekend as I dont have the time to do it today.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have already changed most of the things that were adressed here, except the table section. I am working on that and will change it asap.Ratipok (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (KV5&Giants2008): OK, thank you. I have changed most of the issues that KV5 expressed, I still have to do some things with the table though. I will also look into the comments from Giants2008, however, I will adress everything during the weekend as I dont have the time to do it today.Ratipok (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I believe that I have sorted out everything that was adressed here and I think I have finished the article. Please look into it and let me know if there are any problems to be solved and fixed/edited. Thank you, Ratipok (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: "The club also won the 2009 Slovenian Supercup, the only domestic trophy missing among the club's honours" If they won the trophy, why would it be missing? This sentence has me baffled, though that could just be me remembering the last sentence in the previous paragraph. Perhaps make it clearer in the para that they've won all the Slovenian awards at some point if that's the case. The only other issue I have is the number of redlinks, but that's not an FLC issue; writing articles on a couple of the major scorers likely wouldn't hurt though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:40, 3 September 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 21:07, 2 September 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell, User:Crystal Clear x3
User:Aquila89, User:Bruce Campbell and I are nominating this for featured list because we believe that it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 05:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
removed it
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
done
At present I see quite a lot of prose issues and consistency. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support The article looks fine now. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Ruby2010
done
done
done
done
done
Resolve above comments and I'll be happy to support Ruby2010 comment! 01:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - comments now resolved Ruby2010 comment! 02:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
done
done
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
done
removed American
done
lol done
done
done
done
done
done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - well written and referenced article. Have no issue with its promotion. Good job guys.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A beautiful list--well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:54, 1 September 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 21:07, 2 September 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status as it meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these give you a start. — KV5 • Talk • 23:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from PumpkinSky
- There are a lot of red links here, not just to names but to at least one see also link. FL guideline is that red links should be "minimal". IMHO there are way too many here. Suggest moving them to the talk page til they have articles. PumpkinSky talk 02:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future" from WP:SAL. — KV5 • Talk • 02:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we need to acknowledge that some articles haven't been written yet, that's why red links are good, they show a notable article is yet to be created. Less than one in five isn't so bad, many FLCs come here with much more than that, they're usually rejected. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Only 17%" is not minimal. That's almost 1 in 5. Minimal to me is 5% or less. If we're going to allow 17% we may as well all 100%. If someone is notable for an FL they should have an article. PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only 35 out of the 200 total entries have red links (17%). While I agree 17% is hardly minimal, but I have a hard time calling this list a Creation guide. NThomas (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree that there are too many; the proportion is quite low. As long as they are verifiably part of a complete list (or, in this case, as complete as a dynamic list can get), they should remain, especially since they all, as pro football and basketball players (the only tables containing redlinks), inherently meet the notability qualifications outlined in WP:ATHLETE. Since all lines are sourced, there's no reason not to consider these verified. — KV5 • Talk • 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, my objection stands. 17% is too much--that's more in "significant portion" land than "minimal" land. PumpkinSky talk 23:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for your input. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Similarly, what makes ArenaFan (refs 116 and 126) reliable?
- ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not one that is as accurate as the ArenaFan references. Also, there's a comprehensive list of AFL players on ArenaFan that lists ~30 AFL players that could be included on this list if ArenaFan can be determined to be a reliable source. I've added the ~30 players in a formatted table on the talk page to be inserted into the existing table in the future. NThomas (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and brought up the validity of www.arenafan.com on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. As of now, the references in question have been removed so this FLC can move forward. NThomas (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would concur with that need. In the meantime, can an alternative source be found for these two items? — KV5 • Talk • 00:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like this is a problem bigger than this list. Maybe this is something that needs to be addressed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? NThomas (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I reviewed this source and found it questionable. It is a good clearinghouse for links to other, more reliable sites about arena football, but its contributors are not individually vetted and there's no proof that it is reliably edited or has any sort of professional/expert oversight. — KV5 • Talk • 23:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a WikiProject says a source is reliable doesn't mean it actually is. In this case, their assertion that the site having multiple contributors makes it reliable is questionable to me. I'm going to leave this out in case other reviewers want to comment on it. Maybe they'll have some opinions on it, one way or the other. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this Wikipedia page, ArenaFan should be considered a reliable source. NThomas (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you couldn't find a reasoning, that doesn't help much in establishing reliability. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ArenaFan is one of the 9 statistic links on Template:Infobox NFL player. I looked on the template's talk page and couldn't find a reasoning to include ArenaFan as a reliable source for the 1,000s of articles that use that site for statistics in the player template. NThomas (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I'm looking at reference 6, on the indicated pages. This list lists lettermen; what makes you think the graduating years and the lettering years are the same?
Albacore (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Albacore (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support my niggling issues politely and expediently dealt with, with my thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 22 August 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.