Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 2 |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/LCD Soundsystem discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/LCD Soundsystem discography/archive1}} |
Revision as of 20:05, 25 April 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 20:05, 25 April 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meets FL criteria, based on Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play, another FL. Albacore (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Ruby2010
- No DAB links, and images look good
- "In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current name..." Perhaps change one of the words for flow
- Changed
- "Supporting actress in two of three plays in Neil Simon's Eugene trilogy (Brighton Beach Memoirs and Broadway Bound) were nominated for the Tony..." Should that be "actresses"?
- Yes, fixed.
- No refs for the omitted ceremonies (1948, 50)?
- Do I need them?
- Maybe not, but I am curious why they weren't held. Perhaps a footnote? Ruby 2010/2013 02:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a note. Albacore (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The footnote looks good, but perhaps you could add more information than merely noting a ceremony wasn't held? Why did two years not have a ceremony? Has this been difficult to find reliable sources for? Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can't find any sources saying why the award wasn't held. Is the note necessary then? Albacore (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, but I just wanted to check. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can't find any sources saying why the award wasn't held. Is the note necessary then? Albacore (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The footnote looks good, but perhaps you could add more information than merely noting a ceremony wasn't held? Why did two years not have a ceremony? Has this been difficult to find reliable sources for? Ruby 2010/2013 22:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Align the ref column so that each ref is in the middle (like you did with the year column)
- Fixed, I think. On my browser/monitor I can't tell the difference. Albacore (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby 2010/2013 19:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the promotion of this article. Ruby 2010/2013 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Quick comment – Note V appears to be missing a quotation mark toward the end of the sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Albacore (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "six parts of August Wilson's The Pittsburgh Cycle series" -> I'm not convinced "series" isn't redundant here, coming right after "cycle", which already conveys that it's a series. I also think that you could pipe link out the "The" in "The Pittsburgh Cycle", it's not necessary given the possessive—the target article already makes use of "Wilson's Pittsburgh Cycle".
- "in the 2011 remake of The Normal Heart." -> Could be wrong, but wouldn't revival be the correct term, rather than remake, when it's stage plays we're talking about?
- " In 1976, when the award's name changed to its current title, Shirley Knight, portraying Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children, won the award." -> I think this one reads a bit awkwardly. Perhaps " The award was renamed in 1976, with Shirley Knight becoming the first winner under the new title for her role as Carla in Robert Patrick's Kennedy's Children" might work a little better.
- Other than that, though, I'm happy enough to support this one. GRAPPLE X 20:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed. I agree that "series" was redundant. Albacore (talk) 15:31, 20 April 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 20:05, 18 April 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Liverpool players list, as opposed to the last list, I've gone through every player and checked that their details are correct, I may have missed the odd one or two, but unlike the last list there are not discrepancies with the majority of the players. I look forward to your comments, cheers. NapHit (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment WP:ALT for the Arbeloa image? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since playing their first competitive match, more than 700 players have appeared in competitive first-team matches for the club" This doesn't read brilliantly for me due to the repetition of first and competitive. Other than that it looks good. Adam4267 (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, added alt and removed the first competitive from the sentence. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lemonade51 (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Adam4267 (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "was the first player from the club to play to represent his country." I think "to play" should be dropped. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:28, 18 April 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 20:05, 18 April 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria. What a pro (talk, contribs) is on fire. 08:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 12:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support only issue spotted was that ref 7 doesn't come after punctuation, other than that, great work. NapHit (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 16 April 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 The Rambling Man 07:49, 16 April 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC), User:Glimmer721[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after a lot of work, I believe this amazing trilogy deserves the FL star, particularly in preparation for the release of The Hobbit. Thanks in advance for your comments. Ruby 2010/2013 19:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Co-nominator here: This was a list I tried to improve by adding references to back in early 2011 but eventually stopped; in November I noticed Ruby had begun working on it and asked if we could collaborate. This is my first foray into featured lists so I've kind of watched and learn; hopefully I can learn from this nomination, too! Glimmer721 talk 01:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some comments
|
Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- This looks good to me, great work. But please check for double links to WP articles in the plain text and the awards tables. E.g. Andy Serkis has been linked several times. De728631 (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I straightened this out with Fellowship--do you want things linked again for the other two movies? Glimmer721 talk 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Ucucha/duplinks.js is useful for checking this, if you need it. To jump in on this comment, the only link I think should be repeated under each film's headings would be the link for the film in question—for instance, if The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers is linked earlier in the article, it should still be linked in the heading for its awards. GRAPPLE X 22:41, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I straightened this out with Fellowship--do you want things linked again for the other two movies? Glimmer721 talk 22:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Super quicky - make sure the tables meet MOS:DTT with row and col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support. Been keeping an eye on this one and its progress, and provided my tweaks here and there don't qualify as active involvement then I'm happy to support it for featured status. GRAPPLE X 11:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
The File: pages File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg would benefit from using {{information}}.File:Peter Jackson01.jpg and File:Andy Serkis 2003.jpg claim to be available under GFDL v1.2. Their named sources ([7] and [8]) mention nothing about that however.
Aside from these issues, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged. Goodraise 17:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the {{information}} templates. Should I just remove the GFDL tags? Will that affect the images' licensing? (they're still covered under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be one way of "fixing" it. Goodraise 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked the licensing in favor of Creative Commons (and removed GFDL). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 09:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked the licensing in favor of Creative Commons (and removed GFDL). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be one way of "fixing" it. Goodraise 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:51, 15 April 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 22:05, 11 April 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This list of Malmö FF managers is the third FLC nomination of Malmö FF related list from me in my pursuit to make Malmö FF a featured topic. This list features all of the managers in the history of the club complete with statistics and honours won by each manager. The list is also illustrated with relevant images and fully referenced with footnotes to further explain some things that might be confusing to the reader. I hope you enjoy the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. Two questions, 1. would it be possibble to combine "1973–74 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1974–75 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1977–78 Svenska Cupen — Winners, 1979–80 Svenska Cupen — Winners" to like Svenska Cupen — Winners 1973-74, 1977-78... with small resolution (1280*1024) the cell becomes huge and makes the table harder to read. 2. should the super-cup runner up in 2011 really be an honour? It's a one match competition and the only match was lost. -Koppapa (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to stay consistent with the rest of the table, I'm not sure on how to solve the problem with the titles for Houghton. Some kind of roll-up menu would be perfect but I don't think that is possible inside a table. Svenska Supercupen is the same match format as the Community Shield albeit with a much shorter tradition, surely it should be included? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good way to get around this might be to put the honours in
<small>
text, and abbreviate "winners" and "runners-up" to "W" and "RU" respectively (with appropriate notes in the key). —Cliftonian (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Good idea! Now done. --Reckless182 (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good way to get around this might be to put the honours in
- I'd like to stay consistent with the rest of the table, I'm not sure on how to solve the problem with the titles for Houghton. Some kind of roll-up menu would be perfect but I don't think that is possible inside a table. Svenska Supercupen is the same match format as the Community Shield albeit with a much shorter tradition, surely it should be included? --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The managerial history section is quite a lot of text. Would it be possible/appropriate to add some sub-sections? Looks a useful list though. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I'll look into it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been taken care of (thanks Cliftonian!). --Reckless182 (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I'll look into it. --Reckless182 (talk) 11:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 23:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Should appearances in the Royal League be counted. Wasn't this regarded as a notable competition? Eldumpo (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, appearances in Royal League are not notable as it wasn't recognized by UEFA and was primarily organized as a pre seasons competition. It was also short lived. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support, this looks good to me now. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support some good additions and fixes made during this FLC, good nomination, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:20, 8 April 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 22:05, 11 April 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based this new list on the current FL List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I also pulled from the NFL draft FLs as well as my previous FL Huskies of Honor. I believe this list fully meets WP:FLCR and invite your review. Note that unlike this Oklahoma list this is a list of only women's basketball players; I believe 23 draftees is plenty for a stand-alone list. I plan to build List of Connecticut Huskies in the NBA Draft subsequently. –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Image review: File:WNBA Sue Bird cropped.jpg should use {{cc-by-2.0}} instead of {{self}}. Otherwise, all used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 23:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed as requested. –Grondemar 05:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]Oppose, per Giants. Goodraise 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:
- It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.
- It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [11] [12] [13]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.
- It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut Huskies or Oklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.
- It is not consistent with other featured lists. The vast majority of basketball featured lists only discuss men's basketball. No current featured list only discusses women's basketball; of the lists that discuss both men's and women's basketball, there are as follows: List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and List of coaches in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame, where it makes sense to cover both men's and women's basketball in these lists, since the Hall of Fame inducts from both sports; Huskies of Honor, a university-wide recognition program that includes inductees from men's and women's basketball as well as other athletic personnel (John Toner); and List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts as well as List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. The Oklahoma Sooner articles are the only basketball FLs that cover both men's and women's basketball, and in reviewing the history it appears the only reason these were merged is that the nominator felt that the women's lists would be too short to pass on their own. I submit that 25 entries is not "too short" for an FL. Additionally, if it is required to cover both men's and women's basketball in every featured list, we should look at delisting lists such as List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball head coaches, List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head basketball coaches, Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year, 2008 NBA Draft, List of National Basketball Association awards, and so forth.
I am very interested in your response. Thanks, –Grondemar 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose struck. Connecticut Huskies basketball being a disambiguation page is the argument that convinced me. In my opinion, the nominated list does not presently violate criterion 3b. Goodraise 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reconsideration. –Grondemar 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the second paragraph, the hyphen in "win-loss record" should be an en dash.Alt text for the images would be a nice luxury.- After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.- Changed as requested. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing: Could you add wikilinks to the names in the captions of the images?
- Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, and thanks for the review! –Grondemar 02:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - with comment. "three players—Taurasi, Charles, and Moore" - there are two Moores in the list, so you'll need her first name here. Good job on archiving all of the references- means I get to skip my spiel here, though note if you care that if you add |deadurl=no to the reference, then the current page will be listed first, not the archived version- super-optional, though. I have no problems with the WNBA list being separate from the NBA list. --PresN 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all of your comments. I did not know about the deadurl parameter and will make use of it going forward. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some double full stops in the refs e.g. 37, 39, 45, 47, 49... need to be fixed, and I think since you have "Center / Forward" and "Forward / Center" (I guess meaning the first is the usual position but can play the second?) you should have a note to explain why you have this. I don't think Notes need to be sortable either. But other than that, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the first and last points above. Regarding the ordering of positions, these were generally based on what the sources said rather than any kind of editorial judgement, so I'm not sure what I can say here. Thanks for the review. –Grondemar 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 8 April 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 The Rambling Man 11:57, 8 April 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
- Reworded as "Birmingham have recorded more league victories against Leicester City than against any other club, having beaten them 50 times out of 120 attempts." Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is a page number possible for reference 1? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added, thanks for noticing. Struway2 (talk) 07:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support reluctantly I tried to catch out some of the maths, failed. Prose is good, can find no flaw. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough I was curious as to why it was formatted that way as I've never seen it done before. MOS clarifies this, so no problem. NapHit (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great work. I redid the Wimbledon footnote but apart from that this looks positively fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the note. Don't think I could have got it more comprehensively wrong if I'd tried :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 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 The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): U+003F? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "It includes first-team appearances and goals in the in The Football League" - bit of a stutter there
- "have been expunged from the records are are not included" - duplicate word
- Image of Peter Farrell is non-free and does not have a FUR for this article
- Done Shame, nice photo. The list is short on images now, I'll dig out some more. U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- a few more pics in there now. U+003F? 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Shame, nice photo. The list is short on images now, I'll dig out some more. U+003F? 13:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's about all I could find. I haven't checked that all the links point to the right articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment
- The lead image can and probably should be larger -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support assuming... the image issues brought up by Goodraise are dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments. Encouraging to see that this list had a decent peer review.
hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review:
For File:Tranmere Rovers 27 August 1921.jpg, File:Johnny Campbell.jpg, File:Jimmy Moreton.jpg, and File:Tommy Stuart.jpg, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was."Goodraise 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Additional comment: This is only necessary because the images are hosted on Commons (as opposed to images stored locally in the database of the English Wikipedia). As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, these images appear to be free enough and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F? 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done There was no clear consensus over on commons -- some thought {{PD-UK-unknown}} appropriate and some not. Thus I've duplicated the images locally, using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which is definitely acceptable. U+003F? 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisited. Goodraise 16:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done There was no clear consensus over on commons -- some thought {{PD-UK-unknown}} appropriate and some not. Thus I've duplicated the images locally, using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which is definitely acceptable. U+003F? 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F? 17:30, 27 March 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 The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s): Canadian Paul 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, after working on it for the past several days and carefully reviewing the Featured List criteria, I believe that it meets the standards. This is my first time working at FLC but I based this article off the examples set by other "List of Olympic medalists in..." Featured Lists, with of course some necessary adaptations since this is a rather unique event in terms of modern Olympic history. Canadian Paul 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - Interesting list wasn't even aware art competitions were in the olympics, so this has been an enlightening read.
NapHit (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tips and help! Canadian Paul 16:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! Canadian Paul 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments - the image captions need to lose the periods if they're not complete sentences, which right now are only the lead, Alfréd Hajós, and Walter W. Winans images. You should also consider archiving the online (non-pdf) references with webcitation.org or web.archive.org and the archiveurl/archivedate= parameters - if those websites ever go down, you could lose all your references. Interesting list; I never knew about the art competitions, and given that you can easily see a bias towards to hosting country's artists I can see why it needed to be dropped. --PresN 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (e/c with PresN)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than archiving the URLs, which I will look into tomorrow, I believe that I have addressed all of the other concerns. Canadian Paul 19:00, 27 March 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 The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Tomica, I applaud you for your efforts on this article. Great to see you doing something different for a change! For me, the lead is not exactly "brilliant" yet, and could use some re-organizing and copy editing. The list is not ready yet, but I'll be happy to have another look once issues have been addressed. Cheers, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] More comments:
Not yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The dates in the table only probably need nbsps or you can just wrap the dates with {{nowrap}}. You can take a look at User:Wikipedian Penguin/Sandbox 5 while it lasts to get what I'm talking about, but there's probably no need so who cares. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support if there is no consensus to merge this at the end of the day. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why is Rolling In The Deep wikilinked twice in the lead? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops. I unlinked it. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its all good and you're welcome. Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooops. I unlinked it. Thanks — Tomica (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced it. There it is. — Tomica (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps it's just me but the lead is a little confusing with regard to what actually constitutes a number one in a given year, what constitutes weeks at the top in a given year, what constitutes multiple chart-topping entries/duration/non-consecutive weeks etc. I won't oppose right now but I certainly have concerns over what this all means. And there's little-to-no point in directing me to another list. I want to understand this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rephrase of this whole "excluded" number one is in order. I would suggest something along the lines of "There were fourteen different number-one singles the charts in 2011, one of which, Katy Perry's Firework, topped the charts the previous year." or something. No need for this "and so is excluded" because it blantently isn't excluded, it's in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments by Status
- Would it hurt to have them sortable? I think it would be nice for the reader to see in the chart how many times one artist appeared. — Status {talkcontribs 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that cock up the row spanning? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of don't have an idea what are you talking about. Can I get an example Status? — Tomica (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that cock up the row spanning? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - not super-comfortable that every single reference is to Billboard, but I guess that's the way the other Billboard FLs do it. You need a comma after "Firework" in the lead. I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, every last link in the 2008 FL) then you end up with a completely unsourced article. Also, what's up with the merge tag at the top? It doesn't link to an active discussion, but an older section links to a months-old discussion that never went anywhere. I don't think the list can be promoted with that going on, regardless of supports here. --PresN 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all thanks to all who supported. As a nominator I really don't like that adding the tag came right now. Its obvious that lists by year should be kept and the the 2010's one merged or deleted. The US charts have been written in separate lists since the start of Wikipedia, so I don't see the reason for creating one article for a decade. However, okay, its right to wait. — Tomica (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new seems to have appeared in the merge discussion there for the past two weeks. Could someone organise its closure so we can close this candidate? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Who should be able to close that discussion? — Tomica (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any independent admin would do. i.e. no-one featuring in either this or that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to ask somebody independent with administrator rights. — Tomica (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and closed it as no consensus. Canadian Paul 14:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to ask somebody independent with administrator rights. — Tomica (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any independent admin would do. i.e. no-one featuring in either this or that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 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 20:05, 4 April 2012 [18].
- Nominator(s): Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the FL criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram... Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This a free image and tagged as well. Zia Khan (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
|
- Support Harrias talk 19:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments would he have had an opportunity to play in T20I? I doubt it but worth the question since a fifer is entirely possible in that format and we don't have it covered/mentioned at all here. "He took 3 consecutive" should be 3->three. Sorting by wickets which are the same (e.g. all five wicket matches, all six wicket matches etc) I'd expect to see in then sort by the fewest/most runs conceded. Don't think Ian Botham was Sir Ian Botham when he was part of a fifer in 1992. Finally, consistency with linking (or not) ESPNCricinfo in the refs is needed. I see it linked in 3 and 9 and 12 but not elsewhere. Also, the SHOUTING in ref 5 needs to be addressed, and the consistency of the Cricinfo publisher needs work in ref 41, along with the extra "test" in ref 23. Otherwise, I'd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 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.