Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 3 |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of papal elections/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UEFA European Football Championship finals/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of UEFA European Football Championship finals/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1}} |
Revision as of 23:07, 23 January 2012
- 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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It's been stable for a while (although many of the redlinks have turned blue). It's comprehensive and useful. Savidan 16:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Comment
|
- Support. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Not sure if this is best served as a bunch of century lists, or just one big list. Particularly as each individual list is sortable, but only sortable within its own century... somewhat diminishes the utility of the function.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Our own article has In nomine, not In Nomine...
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment need to ensure names sort correctly, i.e. that Pius IX follows Pius VIII etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thank you for your thorough comments. I believe I have remedied the majority of them.
I have opted not to make the wikitables sortable; I initially made them sortable by copy-and-pasting the markup from the cardinal lists in the individual election articles, and there is no utility to sorting in this context. As to the sources for the 2005 conclave, all three books are devoted in their entirety to the conclave itself. For this reason, it seems helpful to include all three,and no subset of pages would be particularly helpful to the reader. Savidan 19:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Might just be me, but I find List a bit generic as a section heading title. Something like Papal elections would be more descriptive of what's to follow, and headings with titles like this are used in many FAs.In refs 72 and 76, the page ranges should have pp. instead of p., as multiple-page cites.Is the last reference entirely about the 2005 papal election. If not, a page number would be handy there.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have implemented your first two suggested. No subset of the Greeley book would be useful to the reader. It's all the conclave. Savidan 04:13, 13 January 2012 (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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC), Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after redoing the page completely, and structuring it similarly to other featured timelines, I believe that it meets the criteria to become a Featured list. Additionally, if this timeline passes, I have the potential to submit 2002 as a featured topic. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator of the first FLC, I am co-noming, especially since TA has another FLC open and there is no clear consenusus to promote quite yet. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on criteria 1, 2, 3 a), 5 a), b), and 6. Note - I gave this article an offsite review (in particular on sources, citation quality and prose). I feel it is now close to satisfying all of the FL criteria. One more quibble though:
- In the timeline, it shows the season ending on November 1, which is inaccurate. Auree ★ 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "No tropical cyclones form during the month of June." and "No tropical cyclones form during the month of November." I think you should find a citation for that, maybe using the MWR. Also, the timeline graphic needs some updating: Dolly, TD 7J, and Josephine were merged.--12george1 (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've been told, there is no need to source stuff that does not happen (correct me if I am wrong). The fact that the articles were merged is not problematic IMO, as they redirect to their season articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the timeline, but the other issue you brought up does not need to be addressed. I checked the MWR and it doesn't mention anything about the months either. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Since I have no other issues, I will Support this article for featured list candidacy.--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, the statement that there are no tropical cyclones in June and November isn't true. Tropical cyclones include typhoons, which form regularly during both months. On the other hand, there may well be no hurricanes during these months, but hurricanes are a subset of "tropical cyclones". Waitak (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Thanks, that does it. Waitak (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, the statement that there are no tropical cyclones in June and November isn't true. Tropical cyclones include typhoons, which form regularly during both months. On the other hand, there may well be no hurricanes during these months, but hurricanes are a subset of "tropical cyclones". Waitak (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Since I have no other issues, I will Support this article for featured list candidacy.--12george1 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the timeline, but the other issue you brought up does not need to be addressed. I checked the MWR and it doesn't mention anything about the months either. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've been told, there is no need to source stuff that does not happen (correct me if I am wrong). The fact that the articles were merged is not problematic IMO, as they redirect to their season articles. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comment – Not a deal-breaker by any means, but I'm not fond of the external jump in note 3. If a link to that website is deemed necessary there, maybe formatting it as a reference would be an improvement.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Images could do with alt text. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider it done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lovely jubbly, great work, I support the nomination. NapHit (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2012 (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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): HurricaneFan25 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is extremely well-referenced and the prose is of high quality. Thanks for your consideration, HurricaneFan25 13:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was odd to me at first, for example, to not see Ioke listed. Sure, it topped out at Category 5, but that still means it was Category 4 as well. So at the very least, the scope of the list needs to be specified or clarified. Looking at the list of Cat 4 Atlantic storms, the intro specifies that storms which reached Cat 5 strength are not included, this needs to do that as well. --Golbez (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed in the table's notes and the lede. HurricaneFan25 18:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 14:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- As I've already conferred with you, a have a problem with the first image caption. Saying that a Category 4 hurricane was the most intense one not to attain Category 5 status is like saying a Category 2 hurricane (Let's take Rina for example) was the most intense one not to attain Category 3 status. Doesn't make much sense, does it? I may have some more comments over the coming days. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, removed part of it... ?. HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes more sense now, thanks. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, removed part of it... ?. HurricaneFan25 — 00:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support made a couple of minor changes, but reviewed this at peer review so no major traumas for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not seeing anything of concern here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2012 (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 23:07, 23 January 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is well formated and referenced, with an expanded lead providing relevant information about the award, following the path of previous Latin Grammy related featured lists. Thanks to all the reviewers for their hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments – Couple more in addition to the ones above...
In note H, the slash in "mastering/engineer" should be removed.
- FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also should come before the notes.
- FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The third paragraph in the lead is very complicated and confusing. It lists 6 albums, then 4 Grammy categories, then there's a word "respectively". I don't understand what album earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album OR what Grammy Award did the Los de Atrás Vienen Conmigo album earn?
- FIXED. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the image of Juanes. It shows a red X to me. It's probably my browser, but still worth noting. I can see all images except this one.
- On my computer it looks good, I do not know if I have to change it.. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise all is good.--Cheetah (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No reference for note 17? Albacore (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the other directors' sake, it appears that this was resolved in SatyrTN's review (I'm assuming that note L was meant here). Giants2008 (Talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support
- Needs a ref for note "L".
- Fixed, I added a ref. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely more images could be added to the right?
- Fixed, I added images for every award winner. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Fails criterion 1. Goodraise 23:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific? Is there anything wrong with the prose? Jaespinoza (talk) 02:17, 18 January 2012 (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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because we have a parallel featured list for the World Cup and I thought it would be nice to get this featured and then onto the mainpage in time for the final of Euro 2012. As ever, thanks to reviewers for the time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I believe this list meets all the criteria laid out at WP:WIAFL. There are no glaring omissions, it covers the topic completely. The MOS is well-observed, the prose is well-written and the lead adequately covers the topic and the following lists. – PeeJay 13:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and thank you for your tidy up too! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support – Nice job. — Lemonade51 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Just the one query, how come you link to every final apart from 1964 and 1972, seems a bit odd. Other than that it looks grand. NapHit (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Great job, NapHit (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- "The tournament takes place every four years;..." – In my opinion, this looks a bit lost, out of place. Would be better contextualized if it was the end of the first sentence ("... in 1960 and which takes place every four years. It is...") or the beginning of the second ("in 1960. Taking place every four years, it is contested by the men's...").
- If this list is modeled after the World Cup finals list, it would be interesting to also mention in the lead the number of teams that reached the final, that won, etc.
- Is there any compeling reason for the table listing the finals having width-defined columns? Just asking...
— Parutakupiu (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! I'm about to head to bed, so if you don't mind I'll address them early tomorrow. They're all reasonable; (1) I'll look at a rephrase. (2) the WC list doesn't actually seem to cite those stats (so I didn't try to do it) and (3) no, I'll see what happens if I ditch the width-definition, shouldn't be a big issue. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Take your time!) Another comment: the "Key" section is not important or big enough to be a section per se. It could perfectly be tucked into the area between the heading and the table in the "List of finals" section. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Parutakupiu, I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've addressed your comments, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have that column width issue. Could you test reducing the widths, to erase most of the blank space in the cells? Also, I've taken the liberty to make a few copyedits, to the lead mostly; see if you agree with my changes. Btw, the new history section is a wonderufl addition. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now unforced all col widths, so it should be okay, hopefully on your monitor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thumbs up! I have a couple of other suggestions, but I don't want to become annoying and the way the list is is already deserving of my Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I don't mind if you have more suggestions to make. This won't be promoted for at least a week or so, I have time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really minor but I think could make the main table look neater: (1) make key symbols superscript relative to the score (here, I'd suggest replacing "^" with a bigger one (e.g. "§"); (2) place the note tags in the same line (remove breaks). At the end of it, every row would have the same height and the table would look more homogenous. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See what you think of what I've done now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Excellent, just what I envisioned. That's it. Nothing more to be addressed. Great work. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thanks for your ongoing interest and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha! Excellent, just what I envisioned. That's it. Nothing more to be addressed. Great work. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See what you think of what I've done now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really minor but I think could make the main table look neater: (1) make key symbols superscript relative to the score (here, I'd suggest replacing "^" with a bigger one (e.g. "§"); (2) place the note tags in the same line (remove breaks). At the end of it, every row would have the same height and the table would look more homogenous. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I don't mind if you have more suggestions to make. This won't be promoted for at least a week or so, I have time! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thumbs up! I have a couple of other suggestions, but I don't want to become annoying and the way the list is is already deserving of my Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now unforced all col widths, so it should be okay, hopefully on your monitor? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still have that column width issue. Could you test reducing the widths, to erase most of the blank space in the cells? Also, I've taken the liberty to make a few copyedits, to the lead mostly; see if you agree with my changes. Btw, the new history section is a wonderufl addition. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Parutakupiu, I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've addressed your comments, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
(edit conflict) I'd leave this lot till the morning ;-)
Comments
Hope some of this might be helpful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for your comments. I think between me and PeeJay2K3, we've covered most of them, the only one left is the concern over 3b. In my opinion, that info should be removed from the main Euro page and just linked as a {{main}} to here. The article is long enough to support this info being forked off. As I said, since we have an article dedicated to every final in any case (linked to from here), it would seem nugatory to add more info on each final here. But interested in what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On column widths in the main table, I agree with Parutakupiu that there was far too much white space, but for readability, I think you do need a little space in the winners and particularly losers column, which for the longest names crams right up against the venue. In general, columns with comparable content should be the same width as each other, it looks sloppy otherwise; so the winners/losers columns should be the same, and in the results by nation table, the finalists/winners/losers should be the same. I've had a go at tweaking them, see what you think.
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All comments resolved, thanks for dealing with them all (not just mine) so promptly and co-operatively. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- 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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this timeline now meets the requirements needed for a Featured list. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
- Make sure every time the first unit is rounded, the second is as well. For example - " 60 mi (97 km)"
- The Dolly section is improperly formatted where it makes landfall.
- I'd like a source for Hanna being the deadliest storm of the season (see its image caption)
- Could you get a better source for the starting date and ending date? The source only has a generic starting and ending date, and although I know it was the same back then, I'd rather you have a contemporaneous source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
The dashes in number ranges should be n-dashes, according to the MoS.I'd suggest you use Template:convert for the unit conversion and rounding.Waitak (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed all, thanks for the comments! -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (Talk) 21:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that either of these was done. Under May, for example, you have 45 mph (75 km/h) (which is actually incorrect!). Using Template:Convert that would be {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on}} yielding 45 mph (72 km/h). If you explicitly wanted to round to the nearest five, you could use {{convert|45|mph|abbr=on|disp=5}} which produces 45 mph (70 km/h)*. Similarly for ranges (which also takes care of ensuring that you get n-dashes between numbers instead of dashes).Waitak (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 45 mph translates to 75 km/h. I didn't use the conversion template for all of them, granted I didn't use the template for only a select few. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 45 mph is 72.42 km/h. Rounded to the nearest five, it's 70 km/m, as you noted under August 5 at 1430 UTC. This is one reason to use the convert template, so that you don't have math errors. Waitak (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is that we are converting this windspeed from knots.Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The windspeeds used are the NOAA standards. HurricaneFan25 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be difficult here, but if you're converting from knots, then convert from knots and get the numbers right. I'm sure that NOAA doesn't assert that 45 mph is 75 km/h. If I understand correctly, the idea is that you've converted a number in knots (40?) to mph, rounding it to 45 mph, then converted the same figure in knots to km/h, getting 75 km/h. But 45 mph doesn't round to 75 km/h, so the numbers as represented in the article really are wrong and need to be fixed. Waitak (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the numbers are correct because we are converting 40 knots to mph and 40 knots to km/h and yeah the NHC does so this. We have to do it this way as otherwise we are committing OR by increasing or decreasing the winds. Its one of those catch 22 situations and has been discussed numerous times on WP including here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. And I also see that you've used {{convert}} for the most part. {{convert}} does have some output units that convert to multiple units (like mgpus). Is there nothing like that for converting knots to mph and km/h, e.g. {{convert|40|kn|mph km/h|disp=5}} (by analogy to {{convert|55|nmi|km mi}}, which works fine)? Waitak (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that does not exist. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. I'd still argue in favor of more accuracy, as above, but if this is what the NHC does, and you're quoting the numbers you're given accurately, then that has to be good enough. Waitak (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The windspeeds used are the NOAA standards. HurricaneFan25 02:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pending fixing of some things per MOS:NBSP, especially times (e.g. 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST) should be 0600 UTC (2:00 a.m. AST).HurricaneFan25 22:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- BTW, I should have enough time to tweak all of those. HurricaneFan25 22:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is an ongoing discussion at WT:WPTC on wheather that timelines should exist. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion ended a week ago, YE. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Author refs are also incorrect. HurricaneFan25 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - quick note on citations...the way the authors are represented now is quite confusing. In sources with 2+ authors, it's just rattling off names with no sense of if it's first or last. I already made a suggestion to TAWX to reformat these into |author=[First Name] [Last Name] so I'm just clarifying where that's coming from. I'll get around to reviewing this article within a few days. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Some authors are still formatted as last, first; stay with one format. HurricaneFan25 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the format, though I noticed a few more other issues I'll leave the nominator to address. Auree ★ 22:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources (haven't done spotchecks)
- None of the refs have publish dates (|date= parameter); I would like to see these added. In addition, take note that dates within the body of the article are formatted as "Month day, year" (e.g. "December 5, 2011), while the ref retrieval dates are formatted as "Day month year" (e.g. "5 December 2011"). For optimal consistency, use the same format for the ref retrieval (and publish) dates as the one within the article.
- Ref 2: "Clarksville Online" is |work=, not publisher.
- Ref 6: Check title.
- PDF files need |format=PDF parameters.
- Multi-page PDF files also need page numbers/ranges (use |page= for a single page, |pages= for multiple pages)
- NHC published reports should probably be formatted using the cite report template instead of cite web.
- Furthermore, make sure everything in the article is sourced. The notes, as well as parts of the timeline, do not contain any sources to back up their claims. The fact that this list suffers basic problems such as verifiability makes me believe this was a rather premature nomination, so I'm inclined to oppose if I find more significant problems. Auree ★ 23:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I found that portions of significant and contentious content within the lede are not supported by any sources. Some of the content even appears to be incorrect. Some external links also link to completely irrelevant material. It needs a thorough check for similar problems. Auree ★ 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out the issues you have seen so far. I have Fixed all except the lede, which I shall get to shortly. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'll get around to checking your changes soon. By the way, the usage of graphic templates is discouraged over at FLC (for example, Fixed, Done or Not done), as they slow down the page load time. Auree ★ 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some issues still remain: the notes remain unsourced; ref 6 still has a faulty title; and some sources still don't have publish dates. Additionally, use an – (endash) for page ranges on ref 5 and 15 (on ref 5, "1, 2, 4, 5" should be "1–5"). Auree ★ 01:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, after struggling on how to reference a note, I have finished the lede and addressed all the issues that you brought up. :D -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning support on criteria 2, 3 a) b), 4 and 6, as well as on referencing and lede prose. Thanks for your quick and good work. It's looking much better, but I would like to see a prose review of the timeline itself before wholly supporting. I might get around to doing this myself depending on how much edit time I have in the coming days. Auree ★ 03:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support because it resembles the quality of other FL timelines in the Atlantic basin, such as the one in 2009.--12george1 (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comment - What doesnt make this a content fork of the 2008 Atlantic hurricane season? Jason Rees (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:21, 15 January 2012 (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 19:10, 15 January 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is another list of German warships (similar to my previous lists on battlecruisers, battleships, and armored cruisers); this one is a list of German ironclads, or Victorian-era battleships. It caps off this project, which is all but ready for nomination as a Good Topic. The article has previously passed a WP:MILHIST A-class review. I feel the article meets Featured List criteria, and look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this is the case. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my picky issues dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tables fail WP:ACCESS see MOS:DTT for how to rectify this, other than this the list looks great. NapHit (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the list fail ACCESS? As far as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with the list as far as MOS:DTT is concerned (correct captions, no spliced column headers, no use of color, and no nested tables). Can you explain please? Parsecboy (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to add row scopes and col scopes, if you look at the MOS:DTT, you'll see that the row haeder is shaded, they are not on this list. Also the tables have no captions, its all explained at MOS:DTT. The scopes are needed for unsighted readers that's why it fails ACCESS. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be possible to add the "scope="row" |" lines to the template without breaking the tables, at least with the example given at MOS:DTT. I'm not well versed in template building - is there someone more experienced who can take a look? As for captions, that seems redundant to the section headings (which seems to be the general thrust of the discussion here) - I think it would be best to hold off until some consensus is formed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the first table for you as an example. Regarding the captions, they are required, as its for people using screen readers so they need the caption to be able to tell them what the table is about. Most Featured lists that are promoted now utilise these, regardless of whether there is a header close by. NapHit (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added the rest of the row and column labels, but I really do not like the table headers (which in my opinion decrease the visual appeal of the list - FLC criteria 5a). Is it possible to hide the captions so they don't show up but they'll still be available for screen readers? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think its possible to make captions available to screen readers, I'll leave this up in case another editor suggests captions should be included, its not enough to abstain from supporting. I support the list regardless, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've added the rest of the row and column labels, but I really do not like the table headers (which in my opinion decrease the visual appeal of the list - FLC criteria 5a). Is it possible to hide the captions so they don't show up but they'll still be available for screen readers? Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the first table for you as an example. Regarding the captions, they are required, as its for people using screen readers so they need the caption to be able to tell them what the table is about. Most Featured lists that are promoted now utilise these, regardless of whether there is a header close by. NapHit (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't appear to be possible to add the "scope="row" |" lines to the template without breaking the tables, at least with the example given at MOS:DTT. I'm not well versed in template building - is there someone more experienced who can take a look? As for captions, that seems redundant to the section headings (which seems to be the general thrust of the discussion here) - I think it would be best to hold off until some consensus is formed. Parsecboy (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to add row scopes and col scopes, if you look at the MOS:DTT, you'll see that the row haeder is shaded, they are not on this list. Also the tables have no captions, its all explained at MOS:DTT. The scopes are needed for unsighted readers that's why it fails ACCESS. NapHit (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: This is excellently done, and very close to FL status. I do have a few quibbles though:- I'd suggest changing the lede a little; perhaps "the Prussian and later German Imperial Navies" should read "the Prussian Navy, and later the Imperial German Navy".
- "The Prussian Navy acquired three more ships" - sounds like there should be a "had" in there based on the rest of the sentence?
- "The three turret ships of the..." Might want to link turret ship; also, this is a little unclear as to whether it means three ships with turrets or ships with three turrets, can this be tweaked a bit?
- "...the last capital ships ordered from foreign yards." - probably should add "by Germany".
- Arminius: "...designed by the British Royal Navy Captain Cowper Coles" - this is rather awkward, perhaps "Royal Navy" should be dropped?
- Sachsen class: suggest wikilinking boom defense.
- The Bushranger One ping only 19:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, thanks for reviewing the article, Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice work! - The Bushranger One ping only 19:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, thanks for reviewing the article, Bushranger. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- Sometimes your footnotes are out of numerical order. Forex, in the first para of the lede.
- Should be good now.
- Fix caption on SMS Hansa image.
- Did you just want "line-drawing" hyphenated?
- No, it's not a compound noun or adjective. Two words please.
- Fixed.
- No, it's not a compound noun or adjective. Two words please.
- Did you just want "line-drawing" hyphenated?
- Why aren't the costs plural?
- In the ACR for the heavy cruiser list, MisterBee said Mark doesn't add an "s" to make it plural.
- That maybe correct for German usage, but I assure you that every American that I encountered when I lived in Germany during the Cold War anglicized mark(s) as they'd do for any English term. Not gonna oppose over this, but "mark" reads as singular, which conflicts with the quantities specified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - this is the English wiki afterall.
- That maybe correct for German usage, but I assure you that every American that I encountered when I lived in Germany during the Cold War anglicized mark(s) as they'd do for any English term. Not gonna oppose over this, but "mark" reads as singular, which conflicts with the quantities specified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the ACR for the heavy cruiser list, MisterBee said Mark doesn't add an "s" to make it plural.
- Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2012 (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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria, and follows a similar format to current FLs such as List of Afghanistan ODI cricketers. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support NapHit (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems to meet all the criteria having read through it a couple of times, so unless I've missed something, it looks good to me! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the width of the table, when viewed on a monitor width even 1280 pixel width, the images display above the table, creating a large amount of blank space. I know monitors and resolutions are getting better and better, but I think we should be catering to that width, which is still reasonably common. A solution as used at List of international cricket centuries at Lord's Cricket Ground might be appropriate?
- "..was the 2nd match.." – per MOS:NUM this should really be "second" rather than "2nd"; similarly later in the sentence, "by 5 wickets." should be "by five wickets."
Otherwise the list looks pretty good to me. Harrias talk 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support thanks for those tweaks: nice work. Harrias talk 16:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- 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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it meets the criteria. I'm not a big fan of country music, but hey. Albacore (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
I am open to revisit once these issues have been addressed carefully. Thank you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- You now have my full support. Excellent work on the list. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I made a few edits to the list, mostly minor and to increase consistency with other FL Grammy lists (Grammy year template, see also section, portal link, etc). I also removed a few sortname templates, MoS inconsistencies, etc. Please discuss if you disagree with any of the edits. I would support the promotion of this list assuming all other reviewers' concerns are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Only issue I see is that the year's are bold links, not sure if this is frowned upon or not, but I would suggest adding
plainrowheaders
to wikitable sortable to fix the issue and be on the safe side. NapHit (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (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 17:48, 3 January 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria; it provides a good summary of information concerning the regnal dates of some pretty obscure kings in such a way that invites people to explore the rulers of East Anglia further. --Hel-hama (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
First quick nit-pick: The first table entry has a comma after "Possible ruler" while the other similar entries have semi-colons, which seem to work better.
- sorted.
Second quick nit-pick: Ref 34 has no space between the p. and page number, which is inconsistent with the other cites.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- sorted
Support Just one suggestion, perhaps split the reference column in two, although if this affects the template then don't bother, otherwise well done on a great list. NapHit (talk) 23:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
On the whole, the article looks pretty good. Harrias talk 07:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Thanks, the empty cells have disappeared, so whatever you did has worked, and the other points have all been addressed. A nice list about a subject I knew nothing about, but am now quite interested in reading more about. Harrias talk 16:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done. Waitak (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2012 (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 15:08, 1 January 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it is tie for another of this series to make an appearance here! Courcelles 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support — Lemonade51 (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 17:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Suppport. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 22:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Andrewstalk 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I have no issues. —Andrewstalk 22:09, 27 December 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.