Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2012: Difference between revisions
something went missing at some point |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Florida/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1990s UK Albums Chart number ones/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Georgia Bulldogs head football coaches/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball player–managers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball player–managers/archive1}} |
Latest revision as of 20:05, 28 May 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, 28 May 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...all of the recommendations/critiques from the previous nomination have been addressed. Mgrē@sŏn 15:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 00:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—
|
I believe I've addressed each of your comments. Thanks for your input. Mgrē@sŏn 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I support this article becoming a FL. Everything looks good. — Statυs (talk) 06:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- lol, IMHO the font you used for header seems really strange...--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 10:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] Responses
|
- 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, 28 May 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have compared this article to its equivalent singles list, and I hope that this is of a similar quality. I feel that this list meets the FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about how it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't the albums be in the first column and the artist in the second? It is a list about albums after all. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the artist first and then the album/single next seems to be common practice both on Wikipedia (e.g. here, here or here) and off (e.g. here, here or here). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- I think this article is suffering from a case of Overlinking. Do we really need repeated links to the same article? Should only be linked the first time.
- Just a note, over linking does not apply in sortable where every instance is linked. cheers NapHit (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, this article suffers from the same problem I found on the 1970s article - all the dates are inconsistant with the references given. To come up with your own system of dating is major WP:OR across the whole article. To ignore the information in the references given would prevent this from ever passing.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo this sentiment, after looking at this ref the first two dates are not what is in the table. NapHit (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be one of those issues where there doesn't yet seem to be any clear consensus either way. My reasoning for using the dates that the albums that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending dates given by the OCC, is as follows:
- It's more intuitive for the reader. We've had a several comments left on the talk page of the 2010s singles article from confused readers not understanding why entries aren't listed by the date that they first topped the chart. I believe that the main reason why someone might view this Wikipedia page is to learn which album was number one on a specific date in the 1990s. At the moment, they would simply need to find whichever album was number one either on or immediately before the date in question – asking them to first add on six days makes it far more prone to errors, particularly for albums that were at the top for more than one week.
- I don't feel that it's necessarily original research. I can find a few reliable sources that talk about singles/albums reaching number one on the Sunday, rather than the following Saturday (e.g. BBC News; The Independent; STV; Newsbeat).
- I don't think it's any less verifiable either – all the dates can be taken from the OCC site (although obviously the article would need a note to mention that the dates that they list are six days after the dates that the albums reached number one). Also, searching on the OCC's search facility for, say, the number ones on 21 January 1990 shows that the Colours by The Christians was number one, rather than ...But Seriously by Phil Collins. This method continues throughout the decade.
- Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the URL states "1990/1/21". So if you search for 21st January 1990, those are the number ones that comes up. This is my reasoning, at least. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here but that links says 27th January 1990 not 21 January 1990. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While listing by the week-ending date may be the "official" way of charting British number ones, my understanding is that Wikipedia does not necessarily use official names and methods. For example, Flea's official name is Michael Balzary, but he's referred to as Flea throughout his article, as that is more intuitive for the reader. I applied the same reasoning for this list.
- It's also how other articles have listed number ones (e.g. the list of 1990s UK Singles Chart number ones, and the list of 2000s UK Albums Chart number ones). Obviously I'm aware that "Other stuff exists" isn't necessarily a valid argument for inclusion, but both lists have gone through a significant community review, so I assumed that it would be okay to repeat the practice here.
Using the Sunday dates for 1970s albums wouldn't be appropriate, as each week's number one was first revealed on Tuesday (I've actually been meaning to change the 1970s dates; I just haven't got round to it yet). But I feel that, for the 1990s albums, when the weekly chart show was broadcast on Sundays, it would make sense to list them by the date that they reached number one, rather than the week-ending date, for the reasons that I've given above. Now, if I'm wrong about any of this or if anyone disagrees, I'm willing to change the dates. I just wanted to explain the logic behind why I've listed the dates in this way. Thanks very much, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issue, but the problem at the moment is that to the average reader and reviewer the table appears incorrect. This is especially so when note a states: "The artist, album, date of reaching number one and number of weeks at number one are those given by the OCC." yet the dates in the table do not match the references. You could add a note stating the discrepancy, but the problem would still be there a vast section of the table would not be referenced. I think that would stray a little too close to original research to me. I think you should use the dates given by the OCC, as that is the primary source for the tables, unless there is another reliable source which gives the dates from sunday then I think you should use the OCC's method. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll make the change. Bear with me though, as there are nearly 300 entries to get through, so this could take quite a while. On a semi-related note, is there nothing to be said for having some way of visually separating out each year in the table? If not repeating the headers, then maybe having 10 rows that span all seven columns and indicate where each new year begins? At the moment the list looks to me like a huge, unwieldy table, rather like a page of text that contains no paragraph breaks. Just a thought. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have now made the changes. Didn't take too long after all... A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Image review
File:Oasis Noel and Liam WF.jpg needs cleanup.Goodraise 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All seems to be in order now. Goodraise 00:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- London doesn't need to be linked repeatedly in the references: in fact given that it is a pretty well known place, I think you can safely remove all the links to it.
- Support other than that I don't have any issues with the list at all, and as it is only a minor point, I'm happy to support this article. Nice work. Harrias talk 13:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed wikilinks to London. Thank you very much for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks like it fits the FL criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 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 10:57, 16 May 2012 [3].
I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the six previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Arkansas, LSU and Vanderbilt). Hopefully this will get through with minimal issues, but as always am grateful for any comments to make this list even better. Thanks again to all who take the time to look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC) :Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport –"Four of those coaches also won conference championships". The first coach mentioned after this is Herman Stegeman, who didn't lead a team to a bowl game. This means the sentence is inaccurate.Giants2008 (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch. Reworded to make better sense. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: No complaints. Goodraise 14:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some comments from the football ignorant Goodraise
Might be back with more. Goodraise 15:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please look over the references to find any more errors like these. Goodraise 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for these piecemeal comments. I'm investing a lot more time into this, than it might appear. Goodraise 04:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some more. Goodraise 16:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That should be it from me. Well, a few more pictures might be nice, but that's no must. Goodraise 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- One last thing, could you add page numbers for reference #9? Once that is done, I'm glad to support this nomination. Good work.Goodraise 17:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for the support! Patriarca12 (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A nice article overall. Although I am supporting the article, could you link to our article on Winning percentage in the lead? I know you already do in the Key, but given the fact that "winning percentage" is a misnomer, I think for laypersons a link would be best in both places. Also, the table is a little wide in my opinion, and will require a horizontal scroll bar on some screens, but again this isn't enough for me to withhold support. Well done. Harrias talk 19:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked and thanks for the support! Patriarca12 (talk) 10:49, 16 May 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 10:27, 16 May 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My last nomination appears to be set to pass. I only have one question about the presentation of this table: is it best to have each player-manager get one row, or should there be one row per tenure, even if that means some players are listed in multiple rows? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Muboshgu, are you intending to address these remaining concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry. I've gotten busy with things at work. I hope to have these settled by tomorrow. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resolved all of the above concerns. Now it's a matter of getting more reviewers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Muboshgu, are you intending to address these remaining concerns? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Prose comments, from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks good. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks to me like it meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:57, 10 May 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 10:27, 16 May 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another cricket list! This one is based upon the international player lists. It details the players who have played Twenty20 cricket for Somerset County Cricket Club. As usual, all comments and advice is welcome. (Note: I am competing in the WikiCup). Harrias talk 16:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: The one image used appears to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 17:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good! Meets the criteria. Sahara4u (talk) 03:21, 16 May 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 18:42, 9 May 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this meets the criteria and is on par with other NHL FL draft lists. Cheers. Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 20:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support (made a couple of minor changes, hope that's okay). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes are good. I always appreciate a helping hand. Thanks, again.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 21:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (edit conflict)
NapHit (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 17 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 18:42, 9 May 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been structured similarly to List of Philadelphia Phillies owners and executives, which recently passed FL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Jujutacular (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see supports from four users. Shouldn't this list be promoted? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see two supports and two sets of resolved comments from two of the FL directors. Perhaps engage folks from the baseball project to come over and have a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I interpreted your resolved comments as supports. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support List is clear, concise and has all the necessary sources. Looks good to me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:31, 8 May 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 Gimmetoo 11:25, 15 May 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): Salavat (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Been awhile since my last nomination, hope anything hasn't drastically changed. Anyway this list follows the same format as the 2010 IIHF World Championship rosters and is basically the same as the 2009, 2008 and 2007 lists all of which are also featured. Salavat (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 11:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
"After the start of the tournament, each team was allowed to additional players to their roster." What were they allowed to do? Add players?- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Photo caption: "Georgis Pujacs lead the Latvian team in penalties with 33 PIM." "lead" → "led"?- Fixed. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another caption: "Miroslav Satan played six games, recording three goals and two". Word missing at the end; I assume it's assists, based on earlier captions.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Thanks for the comments so far guys. Salavat (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question – Is there a reason the save percentage is in the XX.XX format as opposed to the .XXX format?
- The article page linked to states that it is listed in the decimal first format and the 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007 pages, all featured lists, have the .XXX format as well.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 03:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason. I have changed it to the more commonly used format (.XXX). Salavat (talk) 03:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, wasn't sure if there was something I was missing. Thanks.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all looks good to me, no concerns. Harrias talk 21:31, 6 May 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.