Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/September 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 1 |
addone |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Spikes Award/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ricardo Arjona discography/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Ricardo Arjona discography/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Usher discography/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Usher discography/archive2}} |
Latest revision as of 16:09, 30 September 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 The Rambling Man 16:09, 30 September 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) Zepppep (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
Lead section:
Winners section:
|
- Support Zepppep (talk) 00:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the chances of getting a photo of the award into the article? It's a pretty cool looking award. Zepppep (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried searching Flickr for a free image, but I wasn't able to find any. Unfortunately, all the pics of the award I have found so far are non-free. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uploaded a fair-use logo of the Golden Spikes Award. I think that should suffice. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried searching Flickr for a free image, but I wasn't able to find any. Unfortunately, all the pics of the award I have found so far are non-free. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
Minor point, but if reference 3 covers each of the first two sentences, it doesn't need to be used for each sentence. One cite at the end of the material covered is sufficient for verifiability.
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tim Lincecum photo caption needs a reference, since nothing else in the article covers the Cy Young Awards.
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If ref 11 is acknowledged as "shady" by the nominator, why are we using it? If it's true that nothing else of higher quality exists to cite the fact it's used for, maybe it doesn't belong in this article for now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stated that it could be shady because it comes from not such a well-known website (as opposed to ESPN or MLB.com), due to the fact that it covers only the sports teams based around Phoenix. In my opinion, the source does have some credibility to it, as it was written by one of the website's 3 official editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked for further comments on my talk page. My further comment is that I don't think the source is reliable, and I think the fact is cites should be removed if a stronger citation doesn't exist. Obviously, others can challenge my opinion, and if they can produce evidence of reliability stronger than the site having editors, I want them to do so. Has information from the site been used in any mainstream publications? Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu commented below on how the website's about page "does quell some concerns." I read up more on that page and found out that the website states that their "work has been featured, syndicated, and/or linked to by ESPN, Deadspin.com, USAToday.com, SI.com, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun Times, and Reuters." Provided that what they stated is indeed true, I don't think the website should be considered unreliable, since all these reliable news sources utilize it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a little better, but I'm still wary of the site. I'd feel better if Muboshgu struck out his concern about it. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Muboshgu stated that he is "unsure" of whether to keep the Fanster source or replace it with the other source that is more vague. Which source do you think would be better? —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that I'm inclined to go with, "when in doubt, throw it out". A FL should be beyond reproach, and if a source leaves us unsure, we're probably better off without it, no? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so which source is the one that leaves us unsure? The Fanster.com one or the reliable yet vague encyclopedia. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Muboshgu is saying that both sources leave us unsure, and that the fact they support should be removed. You'd have to ask him to confirm that, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I guess so. I'd be inclined to leave it out entirely, and then I'd be fine giving full support. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed the sources and the fact. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good, one point is that the wording in the third sentence of paragraph three could be adjusted. Instead of, "Although the award can be given to any amateur player, it has always been given to a college baseball player" maybe a better option would be "Although it can be given to any amateur player, the award has always been given to a college baseball player." I bring this up because the prior two sentences both the contain "the award", therefore it might be advisable to move the term to later in the third sentence to make it less redundant. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very nice-looking list. AutomaticStrikeout 18:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
Comments' Sorry to be tardy to the party. It seems that many issues have been addressed so far.
|
- Support All concerns addressed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Harrias talk 11:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but the use of italics to indicate something in the table may not be accessible for screen-reader users. I don't know if anyone else can provide any further guidance either way on this issue? That said, it is only a minor point, and I'm happy to support this article's promotion. Nice work. Harrias talk 11:34, 30 September 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 18:05, 25 September 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the minor sources issues that prevented the list to reach FL status have been adressed and i think it could be promoted this time. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Now that the minor issues that caused the article to not be promoted the first time around have been addressed, I see no reason to not promote this article. Zac 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 21:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support looks peachy. TBrandley 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again for your comments :) They're very welcome. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per last FLC. Erick (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick oppose lots of quick support, perhaps not many of them have looked in detail....
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I looked through the list and I really think it deserves the bronze star. Good job ;) ! — Tomica (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Comments –
- I see that a couple of the paragraphs have been merged since the last FLC. I think the two current paragraphs are now overly long, and preferred the old four-paragraph lead, which I think had better-sized paragraphs.
- In the second paragraph, there's one usage of ref 7 after an en dash that doesn't come immediately after punctuation. In this case, the best solution is to place the citation before the dash, immediately after "chart". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. Thanks for your comments Giants :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:34, 24 September 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 09:28, 24 September 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Rayman95 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after doing many, many edits I feel that the discography has the potential of being an FL. Rayman95 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You diffidently have my support, here are a few comments while reading:
- Link his self-titled debut album in the lead
Done.
- There is inconsistency in regards to endash "six-times" and "four times"
Done.
- RIAA certifications needs linking
Done.
- "2000 decade" ---> "2000s decade"
Done.
- "while the album's fourth and singles singles," typo found
Done.
- Another inconsistency found in regards to numbers "top-thirty" and "top-20"
Done.
- Hope this helps with the nomination and good luck, Jonatalk to me 18:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and support! Rayman95 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome =) btw I created all of his albums and singles on Simple English Wikipedia based on your expansion on all of his articles. Best, Jonatalk to me 19:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and support! Rayman95 (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Done, removed hyphen.
Done, expanded.
Done.
Done, removed.
Removed, seeing how it didn't chart.
Moved to Usher videography, linked in the 'See also' section of the discography. It was requested by a user who thought the discography was too long.
Done.
Done.
Not sure what you mean. If it was the bolding then i've un-bolded the text.
Done.
|
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: You've put a lot of effort into this list. May I offer my suggestions?
Removed sentence, as the music videos were moved to Usher videography.
Done, changed the sentence.
The ones that are linked more than once are the refs that use templates, so the publishers are automatically wiki-linked. I've gone through the refs extensively for overlinking, and besides my first point, could not see any.
Removed brackets.
|
- Support – after feedback from several reviewers, the article looks polished and ready for the bronze star. Good work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I like how the article looks overall. The lead is comprehensive, well centered and referenced. The tables sortable and referenced. According to me, it looks good. Good job! — Tomica (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Rayman95 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Holiday56
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
They were only released in the US. Other charting positions come from digital downloads from the respective countries. "Hey Daddy" has no information saying it charted in the UK on its main article, neither does "Lil Freak" in Canada. I changed "other singles" to "international singles" as this denotes that both "OMG" and "More" were released everywhere, including the US.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done, moved to lead artist section.
Done.
Done.
On its main article, it is noted as a "buzz single" so a promotional single. Also, on its album page Raymond v. Raymond it is not list as an official single.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
|
- Support. Holiday56 (talk) 06:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 01:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] I don't understand, could you be a bit more specific please. Rayman95 (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. |
- Support TBrandley 03:05, 22 September 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 09:28, 24 September 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): TIAYN (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam... --TIAYN (talk) 11:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose (mainly due to lack of a "history"-style section)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Image review: No copyright problems found. Goodraise 17:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not edit my comments. Thank you. Goodraise 23:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas no changes were made since 4 August. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm back... --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Kürbis (✔) 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I'm back... --TIAYN (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wow, this review is running slow. Good work. TBrandley 00:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
* Done "Still, of the ten people who have chaired the National Assembly, only five of them have been members of the Politburo." – This sentence doesn't seem to need the word "still" at the start; it would mean exactly the same thing without it, and its inclusion creates a "chatty" tone which isn't encyclopedic. Also, what is the reference for stating that only five of the chairmen have been members of the Politburo?
|
- What are the references for the birth and death years for the chairmen, the dates that they were in office, and for the rank of those that were members of the Politburo?
- I've never really needed to add the sources for birth-death years before or for the assumption and the ending of holding office (but even if i wanted to add a source for the former, I'm unable too - I've tried.. There is not one single source, which contains a list of NA chairman, which is a problem), and I assume that I don't need to now either... --TIAYN (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hmmmm.. are there references for the dates they took office at least: given that is what the list is about, it seems that to not have citations for the dates in office is a little problematic. Harrias talk 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on it; I'm hoping to be finished by this weekends end. OK? --TIAYN (talk) 11:35, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Hmmmm.. are there references for the dates they took office at least: given that is what the list is about, it seems that to not have citations for the dates in office is a little problematic. Harrias talk 20:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never really needed to add the sources for birth-death years before or for the assumption and the ending of holding office (but even if i wanted to add a source for the former, I'm unable too - I've tried.. There is not one single source, which contains a list of NA chairman, which is a problem), and I assume that I don't need to now either... --TIAYN (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Generally a pretty good list, not major points from me here. Harrias talk 21:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a source; see (its mentioned as a "General" source in the References section);
- Staff writer. "Tìm hiểu về Bầu cử đại biểu QH và HĐND qua các thời kỳ" [Learn about the Election of Deputies to the National Assembly and People's Councils at different times]. Medical College of Quảng Ninh. Retrieved 15 September 2012.
- --TIAYN (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is not replying, even if I have responded to his last comment. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Hi, sorry, I've been pretty distracted and busy recently. Looks good to me now. Sorry for holding things up. Harrias talk 22:18, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The user is not replying, even if I have responded to his last comment. --TIAYN (talk) 19:09, 19 September 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 17:09, 18 September 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a companion to the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Greater Manchester. Its format is similar, and the text has been copyedited. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ref 5 - 19 do not point to any citation. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (all picky...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I've linked conurbation, but I can't see anything else to criticise, so... supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – By the Liverpool Cathedral reference in the lead, there's an extra space inside "20th century" that should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:21, 17 September 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 17:09, 18 September 2012 [9].
I am nominating this for featured list because it deserves a star. The first (obscure) nomination failed due to a very minor issue, despite receiving three supports. The main editor, User:ISD, agreed with me to nominate this article a second time. Regards.GoPTCN 09:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose multiple comments, but enough to say no.
|
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all criteria. Overall, an extremely impressive list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeRef 1, 4, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 37, 38 doesn't exist anymore. What makes Pagen News reliable? Afro (Talk) 07:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Good to see you back! =) I removed the pagan page and replaced it with amazon (hope it is ok). I replaced the dead references with archived ones. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The retrieval dates need to be fixed now that the links have changed. You should be consistent in the date formats for the refs either "2009-03-30" or "28 March 2009". Afro (Talk) 10:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every note should end with a full stop. Is ref 22 meant to be in relation to the notes or the 1980 winner itself? "Male Genitalia..." being "deliberately odd" was a columnists opinion it was deliberately boring though. Ref 15 still doesn't exist also 37 still doesn't exist and has no publisher. Afro (Talk) 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was told that incomplete sentences should not end with a period. I don't understand your second note. Will do the rest later. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding my second note On the ref "Judges appeared to suspect Pensoft of breaching a strict, 21-year-old rule that books must not be given boring titles simply as a ploy to win the contest." that appears to be the reason. "Perhaps the title was too odd," said the Bookseller magazine's columnist Horace Bent" seems to be what's credited in the notes. Afro (Talk) 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Also fixed the two refs. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support seems to meet the criteria. Afro (Talk) 09:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but two comments: while there's nothing technically wrong with redirect links, you have so many here that it starts to look a bit sloppy- diarist, champagne, claret, demographics of the PRC, graves, any link that uses an mdash instead of a hyphen (there's about ten of them), Kensingtons, Abrams books, etc. Also, why does the 98 entry have no description, and the 99 entry not actually describe the winner? As a final note, consider archiving the remaining online references, though as you have most of them done I assume it's intentional. I will say, speaking as an employee, that those Amazon links could die at any time if the seller stops selling that specific book through Amazon. --PresN 05:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on these points? Archiving websites strike me as an optional item, but if the redirects and descriptions could be fixed and explained that would be great. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most if not all of the current active sites don't have any archives. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that is certainly understandable. How about the redirects and descriptions? Any comment on them, and whether they should be looked at? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The column states "Notes", so not necessary a description of the respective book. I replaced an m-dash with an n-dash. There is no description for some books because the title already conveys the information. Anyway, if this is a issue then I can add descriptions. I fixed the links. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: File:DiagramPrize.jpg and File:Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers.jpg lack convincing fair-use rationales. Goodraise 00:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what is the issue here. Could you raise examples of how to improve the fur? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FURs need not be concise, but convincing, and they need to explain how the WP:NFCC are met, not merely assert that they are. For your convenience: The relevant guidelines are WP:NFC and WP:FUR. An example of a decent FUR can be found here. Goodraise 18:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How about now? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Slightly better. You have copied some applicable parts from the FUR I linked, but you still haven't given all the necessary answers. How are all of the NFCC met? Goodraise 18:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaborating: Your adjusted FUR does not state, for instance, whether the resolution of the image has been reduced. It does not state how much has been used. I'd assume this to be the entire logo, but the FUR says it's the "front". The front of what? Why can't this image be replaced by a free alternative or text?
Ultimately, writing a proper FUR for the logo is a formality, although its resolution may have to be reduced. However, for the front cover doing so may not be possible. Using images only as a "means of visual identification" is already on the border, accepted for the main subject of an article, but not for list items. Goodraise 05:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if this file was reduced, etc, plus the url is dead. I will ask the main contributor: Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The images were added such a long time ago I can't quite recall how I got them. However, I don't mind if certain images are deleted in order to make the list a featured one. You can delete File:Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers.jpg, but the the logo probably needs to stay. ISD (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was under the impression that "the logo" is something people knowledgeable in this subject area would recognize. If so, it should be trivially simple to find it elsewhere. If on the other hand the image isn't widely used to represent this award, then it may not even be useful as a means of identification (which, as I pointed out above, is already a borderline NFCC violation). I'm really sorry that I have to be such a pain in the knee about this, but we need good reasons for using non-free media, especially for those used in featured articles and lists. Goodraise 11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, NFCC is very awful and creepy. I removed both pictures from the article. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 12:15, 15 September 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 07:11, 18 September 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria, after heavy expansion the past few days. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of 30 Rock episodes, List of Lost episodes, List of Heroes episodes, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Support. TBrandley 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and support! -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like this meets the criteria and all comments have been resolved. Cliff Smith 18:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since over a week ago, all issues have been addressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:20, 18 September 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 07:11, 18 September 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): TBrandley 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. Cheers, TBrandley 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from CassiantoTalk 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
I'm no good with tables and sorting etc, so I will focus on everything else
Consistency needed re formatting. For some reason, the Harvard formats for the sources within the reflist do not have periods, but everything else does.
Not essential, but nice to adopt some kind of consistency. More to come tomorrow -- CassiantoTalk 23:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. As always, a very good list both grammatically and aesthetically. Very informative and clearly a labour of love. -- CassiantoTalk 07:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review, and support. TBrandley 13:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support on prose and image, looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks man! TBrandley 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Kürbis (✔) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments Looks overall good:
|
- Support Good work. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! TBrandley 07:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Lemonade51 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing and supporting! TBrandley 21:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, Great work on the list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. TBrandley 19:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Although I worked on this before (so I'm not sure how good my show of support is) everything I would have suggested to have been fixed is all better. This is a fine looking article, and worthy of FL! Good job TBrandley!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! TBrandley 22:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sofffie7 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support. Sofffie7 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! TBrandley 16:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Bruce Campbell (talk) 04:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing, and the quick support. TBrandley 05:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job, the list looks good. Rayman95 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! TBrandley 23:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the mythology arc/release might be worth a sentence in the intro. In addition, the entries Vol. x in the table should be changed to Mythology Vol. x or something like that; otherwise it is really confusing. Also, I see no reason to keep the Nielsen table separate from the overview table. Nergaal (talk) 02:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all of your concerns. How's it look now? TBrandley 03:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 13 September 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 The Rambling Man 07:11, 18 September 2012 [12].
- Nominator(s): Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FL criteria. Though there is no FL by fiver/ground, Iv compared it to the existing FLs by century/ground and it looks good. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A very unique idea, and should be a FL soon-
|
Links
Ref. no. 7 is a dead link.
- Seems the newspaper removes old links. Ref 8 covers the same thing and I take it ref 7 can be accepted as an offline ref agf as its originally from a newspaper source. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 12:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 16, 21 and 22 does not mention either publisher or work criteria. Do have a look.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- fair enough for me.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Initial comments
|
- Support – Good work with the list —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 7 September 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 07:11, 18 September 2012 [13].
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have done a lot of work on it, and I think it meets the criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
"as part of joint deal with Rostrum." missing an "a" before joint
NapHit (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NapHit (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments:
Holiday56 (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, these are the last of my comments. The article is very close to garnering a support vote from me. Holiday56 (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
As all my comments have been addressed, I can now add another Support vote to this nomination. Holiday56 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 00:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Kürbis (✔) 10:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 20:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support. GRAPPLE X 20:16, 16 September 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [14].
- Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after working on this article for the past year or so, I finally got around to developing it to featured quality. I am the most frequent contributor to the list, and after a recent peer review from TBrandley, I think this is ready to become a featured list. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from CassiantoTalk 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Not much else as far as I can see. Pretty solid stuff! :-) -- CassiantoTalk 07:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Worthy of FL status. You list guys certainly know your stuff! -- CassiantoTalk 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Looks good. TBrandley 16:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 12:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments overall I'm not entirely convinced by this format, but specific comments nevertheless.
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comment I share TRM's concerns about the format, and specifically the use of level 3 headings in the middle of the table, which is something that MOS:DTT suggests against. There are also a couple of issues regarding row and column scopes. I've made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- If the colours situation has now been resolved, then I am happy to support this nomination. Like the new lead image too (although I think there needs to be a hyphen in "racially-diverse"). Great work, overall! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sofffie7 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
- Support, Sofffie7 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Loved it from the start! Jonathan Harold Koszeghi (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wikipedical (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Question: is there some logic as to the order of the characters/actors? Can't quite figure it out, since they're not listed alphabetically or by time on the show. -- Wikipedical (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Looks good. -- Wikipedical (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
- Done.--DavidCane (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source comment – What makes Wetpaint (ref 23) a reliable source? Our article on the site says it accepts user-submitted content, which makes me doubt that it is an acceptable source.Giants2008 (Talk) 18:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- It was deemed reliable by Nikkimaria, and was accepted in my recently promoted FAC for Give Peace a Chance (Grey's Anatomy). Wetpaint, owned by The Cambio Network, was formerly a wiki-site. After much criticism, they moved their wiki to a different URL, and formed an editorial staff. Wetpaint has won an award, and has been on several "best sites" lists including one from Time Magazine. They have also interviewed several celebrities including Sarah Drew of Grey's Anatomy, and have partnered with renowned companies such as Fox, The Discovery Channel, and HBO. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 9 September 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [15].
- Nominator(s): Wikipedical (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive, up to date, and meets all other Featured List criteria. Corresponds with other Featured Lists List of 30 Rock awards and nominations, List of awards and nominations received by The Simpsons, List of awards and nominations received by The Bill, etc. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support. TBrandley 01:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
As of 06:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC), all issues have been addressed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like this meets the criteria and all comments have been resolved. Cliff Smith 18:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well-written, nicely formatted, good references. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 11 September 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [16].
- Nominator(s): Reckless182 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list is a collection of all thinkable records and statistics of Malmö FF based on the available references. I hope you like it. --Reckless182 (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Five graphs in the records section seems a bit excessive? How reliable is eu-football.info? Ref 3 and 16 have trouble loading for me. Afro (Talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could remove the average attendance graphs since they are already included in their respective stadium articles but I think they are informative and relevant to the section at hand. You do have a point about eu-football.info, I'm suddenly not so sure about it's reliability since it is open for edits. Perhaps a third party could help us determine? Unfortunately I've been unable to find this information anywhere else, but I'll keep looking. Ref 3 and 16 works fine for me.--Reckless182 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think the goal difference graph seems irrelevant to the section? I would suggest the removal of eu-football.info, it says it posts the sources for data confirmation however since it doesn't directly attribute any source to one of their pages, it's unreliable at the very least. Afro (Talk) 05:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's relevant and interesting, the list contains both records and statistics, the graph is an interesting piece of statistics. I removed the internationals section with the eu-football.info refs, unfortunately I couldn't find another reference to support the section. --Reckless182 (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it relevant to the section though, at no point is goal difference mentioned. Afro (Talk) 04:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but you're mistaken. Goaldifference is mentioned under Allsvenskan records held by the club in the same section. Various goal records are also discussed. I don't see why you're so much against the graph? It's a nice piece of statistics in a list for records and statistics.--Reckless182 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. The graph is now removed after discussion with The Rambling Man (see below).--Reckless182 (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I feel this list is not standalone and rather outlined, as the entries are partially forked from other articles. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 16:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that I have borrowed is the table layout in the players section, the table of European record and the honours (although this entry includes more titles than in the main article). Everything else is unique to the list, I don't see the problem? --Reckless182 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. TBrandley 15:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Reckless182 (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great work as usual Reckless! —Cliftonian (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers man! --Reckless182 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [17].
- Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. As a background, this article is a comprehensive list of the major awards and nominations American Christian rock band Casting Crowns has received. The list notes awards and nominations from the American Music Awards, the Billboard Music Awards, the Grammy Awards, and the Dove Awards. Toa Nidhiki05 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support. You may want to consider using an ndash as a placeholder for the band. Be sure to indicate such with a legend or something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, I've added that. If someone knows of better text, by all means add it. Toa Nidhiki05 03:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment
- About.com is not considered a reliable source, so I would advise you replace those refs. NapHit (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with archive refs from the GMA itself. Toa Nidhiki05 01:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Casting Crowns awards and nominations → Awards and nominations received by Casting Crowns
TBrandley 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. It's fine now. Excellent. TBrandley 03:33, 21 August 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [18].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is ready for FL status, or will be after things I missed are pointed out. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comments
- Associated Press is the work for Ref 5, ESPN.com are the publisher
- Why do external links have retrieved dates? Lemonade51 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, both good catches. I corrected those issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose, looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Just my opinion, but I think the article would be improved by adding another image in between Hutchinson and Lester.
- Has anyone won the award multiple times? If not, this should be mentioned in the article. AutomaticStrikeout 19:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added an image of Butler, it did need a third image. There has been no multiple winner, and I'm not sure that it needs to be said, since sorting the table will reveal that. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 21:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. TBrandley 22:07, 8 September 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 17:10, 11 September 2012 [19].
- Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the most active on record, with a total of 19 named storms. It also included the sixth costliest hurricane in United States history: Hurricane Irene. After working diligently on this article for several days, I feel that it now meets the criteria to become a Featured List. Any comments regarding how I can improve this article are appreciated. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this list is unstable, as there have been numerous reverts within the last few days. With that said, nothing actionable can be done here, so TA, don't worry about this, it should fix itself, this is more to the FLC directors than anything. All the ADT stuff needs to be changed to AST, as the NHC does not sue ADT since all the places within the US are on AST year around. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comment - in some cases you've misspelled nbsp and said "nsbp" instead, so they show up on regular viewing. TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 16:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment - after a thorough read-thru this morning, I noted some additional things:
- "Hurricane Irene weakens to a tropical storm and simultaneously makes its eight landfall on Brigantine Island, New Jersey, with winds of 70 mph (110 km/h)." - Eight → Eighth
- "1200 UTC (8 a.m. AST) – Tropical Storm Maria" - Since you use [h]:[mm] on all other occasions, change 8 a.m. AST to 8:00 a.m AST.
- Since Lee and Irene had their lowest pressure and highest winds separate from each other, you are forced to say that they "reached peak intensity" twice for each of them. If this was intentional then leave it alone, but if it was not maybe you can try saying something different for them, like "reached its minimum pressure at [xxx] mbar (hPa;..)". Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Conditional support if these issues are tweaked. TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was typed that way on purpose. Fixed the other two comments. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- +Support - Now that my issues have been fixed, I can now support this article. Timeline of the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season describes in detail the events which occurred during the hurricane season, and has an excellent lead. By using the elements of past featured timelines, this article in my opinion meets the criteria in WP:FLCR. Nice work! TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 20:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was typed that way on purpose. Fixed the other two comments. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support if these issues are tweaked. TheAustinMan(Talk|Works) 14:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment now the timeline graph is messed up and the page is becoming unstable again. Not going to strike my support though. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scratch that, we're fine now.
- Image review: No copyright related problems found. Goodraise 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what is the status of this? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I have been busy lately and have not been able to take care of these minor problems. Thanks to YE for doing so for me. Any more concerns? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support didn't find anything. :( Lol. Great work. TBrandley 22:36, 7 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [20].
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and extended the prose, I feel it now meets FL criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 10:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I made a few minor changes, now, its completely good IMO. Well done! TBrandley 03:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-- Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, as my comments have been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support,
with one query: using "NA" for unknown directors implies there was never a director for the video. I would suggest using a dash instead with a note at the bottom for what the dash denotes (unknown director). Otherwise,great work and full support. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As n/a is an abbreviation for "not available", I think that it is fine to use the template in this context, as the article for n/a itself says that it is typically used to "indicate when information in a certain table cell is not provided... because the answer is not available", and the template is usually used when editors cannot find the director's name in a reliable reference; therefore, it is not available. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 06:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, seems reasonable. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:09, 1 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [21].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It is based upon existing FLs of the same type. Look forward to your suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support. Looks good. TBrandley 02:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support— Meets the standards. Zia Khan 19:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Don't see why International is capitalized in the first sentence.
- "He has scored 150 or more runs in a Test match innings on tweleve occasions." Typo in "tweleve". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:23, 30 August 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [22].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after some extensive work over the past day and a bit the list now meets the criteria. I've revamped the references which seemed to be the main issue regarding the lists demotion. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review the list. NapHit (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Formula One, abbreviated to F1" —> "Formula One, abbreviated as F1" Thine Antique Pen 15:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've stuck it brackets instead. NapHit (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Ayrton Senna, the last man to die at the wheel of a Formula One car.
- Untrue. Firstly, he technically died whilst out of the car receiving medical attention, but more importantly, two drivers have died in F1 cars since 1994, in non-Championship events. The sentence above the table List of people who died during a FIA World Championship race weekend, or elsewhere while driving a Formula One car means that they should be included. They both used to be on this list but were removed for some reason. Either they should be re-added or the wording changed to exclude deaths outside World Championship events. This would involve the removal of 14 drivers currently on the list. The two drivers were John Dawson-Damer, killed in a Lotus during a hillclimb at the Goodwood Festival of Speed in 2000, and Fritz Glatz, killed driving a Footwork FA17 in a EuroBoss race in the Czech Republic in 2002. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see those two have been re-added - there may be some objections to that, as there were previously. The discussion is still on the talk page. My point is that either they should be included or the criteria should be worded to explain clearly who is included and who is excluded. I don't mind either way, so long as the list matches the criteria. Some people wanted the two later deaths excluded as the cars involved did not conform to the F1 regulations as they were written at the time of the accidents. But that would also exclude the Indy cars of the 1950s (which never conformed to any F1 regulations) and any modified cars used in testing. It's a complicated subject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added them back as you've noticed. Yes I read the discussion page, there seemed to be a preference for what having the list in its current guise. I think the way it is now the best way to do it, I think its clarified in the text, the list refers to people driving an F1 car regardless of where it is etc. I'll try and make it clearer. It certainly is a complicated issue, but I think this is the right way to go. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Hopefully if someone objects, we can figure out an easy way to keep everyone happy. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added them back as you've noticed. Yes I read the discussion page, there seemed to be a preference for what having the list in its current guise. I think the way it is now the best way to do it, I think its clarified in the text, the list refers to people driving an F1 car regardless of where it is etc. I'll try and make it clearer. It certainly is a complicated issue, but I think this is the right way to go. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see those two have been re-added - there may be some objections to that, as there were previously. The discussion is still on the talk page. My point is that either they should be included or the criteria should be worded to explain clearly who is included and who is excluded. I don't mind either way, so long as the list matches the criteria. Some people wanted the two later deaths excluded as the cars involved did not conform to the F1 regulations as they were written at the time of the accidents. But that would also exclude the Indy cars of the 1950s (which never conformed to any F1 regulations) and any modified cars used in testing. It's a complicated subject. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great work. Sure is one of Wikipedia's best lists. TBrandley 01:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Look nice and ready to me! --Yerevanci (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support— Good work! Zia Khan 05:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Is excellent. I believe it is ready. TollHRT52 (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (AEST)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose for now: needs a bit more copyediting:
- "It was not until the 1960s these were first introduced. Helmets and overalls became mandatory and the FIA assumed responsibility for safety at the circuits.[2] Steps were taken to improve the safety of the Formula One car in the 1970s. The cockpit opening was enlarged allowing the driver to escape quicker in the event of an accident and outside mirrors became mandatory.[" I think these four sentences need to be merged into two, to clearly explain that #2 refers to the 60s, and #4 to the 70s.
- done NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "49 drivers have died..."
- You haven't specified your issue with this. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list includes drivers who have during a FIA World Championship race weekend, and those who have died while driving a Formula One car outside of the World Championship. " this is a bit confusing. you mean the list includes BOTH drivers who died during the weekend and those who died outside of them but driving a F1 car?
- Yes, the list contains drivers who died during a Formula One race weekend and those who have died elsewhere while driving a formula one car, the sentence seems clear to me not sure how it could be clearer. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Track marshals and other race attendees, who have died as a result of these accidents are not included in the list. " is there an estimate on how many people died during accidents but were not the drivers?
- Don't think so, had a look around, couldn't find any reliable estimates. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "(there have been two fatalities outside of World Championship Grands Prix) " perhaps change this into a footnote and clearly explain who are the two
- done NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- mention that two drivers died in the 1960 Belgian Grand Prix and 1994 San Marino Grand Prix.
- Not sure, i don't what the lead to start reading like a list of facts. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- mention that '58 is the year with most fatalities (4)
- Don't think it's necessary, lead already states fatalities by decade, don't think we need to elaborate further. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By circuit needs to include also the number of times the circuit has been used. Fatalities by constructor needs to have columns with how many seasons the constructors were active
- Not sure this is necessary, the tables are there to state the number of times fatalities have occurred at the circuit, don't think we need to overload either table with more information. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there should be an age column also
- Again, not sure about this either, not sure its necessary, I think it would be adding too much information to the table. The reader can click the link to the article if they want to know their age. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Nergaal, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You adressed some of them, but mostly discarded them. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think discarded is a bit harsh, whether I disagreed with them or not, I addressed them one way or the other. I just don't think there is a need to flood tables and the lead with loads of information. Wikipedia is not a statistics site adding more information to the lead is unnecessary as it adequately summarises the table. Listing more would not make the prose flow. With the tables, I'm not sure an age column is necessary, the reader can click the person's article to find out, it would be information overload, likewise with the other suggestions for the other tables. I know you're comments were well-intentioned I just don't think it would be practical or necessary to include the suggestions I've highlighted. NapHit (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You adressed some of them, but mostly discarded them. Nergaal (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Don't think I've ever had a list I nominated for delisting come back to FLC before. Interesting occurance, and the sourcing certainly looks much better than it did when the list was at FLRC.
- Comma after "Track marshals and other race attendees" probably shouldn't be there.
- The number starting the sentence "49 drivers have died..." would be better off spelled out. I've never thought that numbers starting sentences are a good thing, and I think that is why Nergaal commented on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
quickie something I missed earlier, the 2002 EuroBOSS Series season (although red) would be a more accurate link than just EuroBOSS Series wouldn't it? Even if you had to create a stub which remarked upon the fact that a driver was killed in an F1 car during the season? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I agree changed to a redlink. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't agree with many of Nergaal's points in the opposition. I'm very happy indeed with the standard of this list, definitely FL quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 28 August 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [23].
- Nominator(s): PresN 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, last one! The four story lists are down, so here we are with the odd duck of the Nebula family, the award for Scripts. It's all modeled after the other Nebula lists, with reviewer comments duplicated here. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I discovered how hard it is to make such a list! Wonderful as usual. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. TBrandley 04:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
That's the only issue I could find great work. NapHit (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I can't see any remaining problems, and picked up a table formatting idea for my own FLC, what's not to like? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:55, 2 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [24].
- Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have created it from scratch and would like it to become a featured list. Thine Antique Pen 14:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TheSpecialUser (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - Can you provide WP:ALT for images? TheSpecialUser TSU 01:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - No problems. TheSpecialUser TSU 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 02:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. TBrandley 13:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved Comments from Vyom25 (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
- Support--Vyom25 (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is not representative of our best work, and needs a heavy copyedit from a native English speaker and uninvolved editor. Until this is corrected I'm afraid I will have to
|
As the GOCE request has not been responded to I've taken it upon myself to copyedit the prose. As a result I will refrain from supporting or opposing the nomination and have marked my comments as resolved. NapHit (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed from page. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Some more comments
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 3 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [25].
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC), Khazar2[reply]
We are nominating this for featured list because we feel it meets the criteria and covers an important aspect of the recognition of freedom of the press. The list is well illustrated and comprehensive, with a well-written lead and full referencing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 10:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
- Support - Nice. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks indeed. Khazar2 (talk) 10:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 03:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thanks for reviewing -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure; no problem. TBrandley 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It should and can be represented as one of Wikipedia's finest lists. Great work! TBrandley 02:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thanks for reviewing! Khazar2 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reviewing -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:48, 2 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [33].
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked extensively on it to ensure that it meets the criteria for a featured list, which I have based on the previous discographies I've worked on. Any criticism would be welcome if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 12:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Calvin999 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Calvin999
|
- Support Aaron • You Da One 17:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 16:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support, as my comments have now been addressed. Holiday56 (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support NapHit (talk) 15:37, 1 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [34].
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past year and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
|
- Support Meets criteria. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 08:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zepppep (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 17:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
All my comments have to deal with the lead, save for the last comment. 1) The lead has numbers, such as 25, then "twelve." Be consistent. 2) A little too much detail for the HOF eligibility, IMO. Also, it's stated 13 of the current club members are "disqualified" for the Hall for the current time being; is disqualified the same as "ineligible" because I think the latter is what should be used. 3) The first sentence of the doesn't seem to be particularly controversial, yet it has 3 references. 4) I just got done reading a full sentence's worth of HOF eligibility requirements (last paragraph), yet I have to have it explained to me when Sosa and Bonds will be eligible? I think the reader would be able to figure it out on their own. 5) Perhaps too much weight given to the club and a player's HOF chances? I think "two of whom made it on the first ballot" is giving way too much credit to this feat and a players HOF enshrinement. There are a number of factors, some even off the field, that go into a player's induction; again, too much weight given to this one club IMO. 6) The lead lists the number of players who accomplished the feat in 2011, yet the caption of the Kinsler picture states he is the "latest." I would make the caption even more specific, stating "the latest of the five players to reach the club during the 2011 season." Zepppep (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Zepppep (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Kinsler image caption seems inaccurate. Technically, he was not the most recent to join the club, since he did so in 2009. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Didn't notice that. Would you suggest me delete the Kinsler pic, or replace it with Ellsbury and label him the "most recent non-repeat player"? —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing with Ellsbury's fine, though if you want to keep Kinsler (which I'd narrowly prefer just because it's a better pitcure, but it's entirely up to you), then change it to say latest to repeat the feat. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the numbers in the second paragraph of the lead section, note the following from Wikipedia's Manual of Style regarding numerals: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words... However there are frequent exceptions to these rules. ... Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." Since the first two sentences in the second paragraph are comparing numbers of players, it would be appropriate to use numerals for the numbers. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- When sorting in ascending order for HR, I would expect it to sort secondarily by the SB.
- I'm sorry, but I don't know how to do this. Could I trouble you to clarify this for me? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Help:Sorting#Secondary key has instructions on how to achieve this, but I think they're backwards. It seems to me you have to sort the table based on the primary key first, then hold down the shift key while clicking to sort based on the secondary key. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Isaacl. Holding the shift key down does work. Does that mean there's nothing else that needs to be added into the table syntax? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice that there were some footnote symbols after some of the entries. This will also throw off sorting (and may be why simply sorting on the secondary key first and then the primary key is not working). See Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key for information on inserting a hidden sort key (I've seen this used in an article somewhere but I can't remember where now; if I find it I'll point you to it). isaacl (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Template:nts page and select "What links here" under the Toolbox section in the left hand side bar to see examples. Basically I think you just need to wrap all the numbers in the nts template. isaacl (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still completely confused about the nts template. Anyways, pressing the primary key (i.e. HR column) first, then holding the shift key for the secondary one (SB column) actually works for me, even with the symbols (the ^, am I right?). It sorts Alex Rodriguez first (who has 42 HR + 46 SB) before Canseco and Bonds (who both have 42 HR + 40 SB each). The caret symbol doesn't seem to affect the table. I'm not sure about others, but it's working for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking on the secondary key first then the primary key should also work. I believe all you need to do to use the nts template is to replace each number with {{nts|number}}. isaacl (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the addition of the nts template absolutely necessary? Adding the template complicates matters a whole lot further and the current format of primary key –> shift+secondary key works perfectly. My theory is that only when the current format doesn't work should the nts template be added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what is generally expected in a featured article/list; however, I can see how the original commenter might feel that the ability to sort by clicking on the secondary key then the primary key may be important to preserve, given that some people may rely on this and not know about using the shift key. It is after all supposed to be an example of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the addition of the nts template absolutely necessary? Adding the template complicates matters a whole lot further and the current format of primary key –> shift+secondary key works perfectly. My theory is that only when the current format doesn't work should the nts template be added. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still completely confused about the nts template. Anyways, pressing the primary key (i.e. HR column) first, then holding the shift key for the secondary one (SB column) actually works for me, even with the symbols (the ^, am I right?). It sorts Alex Rodriguez first (who has 42 HR + 46 SB) before Canseco and Bonds (who both have 42 HR + 40 SB each). The caret symbol doesn't seem to affect the table. I'm not sure about others, but it's working for me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Isaacl. Holding the shift key down does work. Does that mean there's nothing else that needs to be added into the table syntax? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering now if you need to use a hidden sort key, like we do on many cricket lists where, say, hitting 100 runs off 40 balls is better than hitting 100 runs off 41 balls. I know this is all a bit of drag, if you and the other editors here don't think it applies to baseball lists, then I'll defer to you, but if you look at one of the recently promoted cricket "List of centuries..." lists then you'll see how they sort stuff invisibly... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nts template should be good enough, as I understand it, since all that is needed is to mark up the value in a way that extra trailing text won't affect the sorting. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's the double click that I haven't ever used before... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nts template should be good enough, as I understand it, since all that is needed is to mark up the value in a way that extra trailing text won't affect the sorting. isaacl (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to work for me: I clicked twice on the "SB" heading to sort in descending order, then clicked twice on "HR" to sort it in descending order, and players with the same number of home runs are ordered in descending order of stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. Because even without the nts template, you would still have to click the SB first before the HR (basically, it's sorting exactly the same way as it would have without the template). What TRM wants here (if I'm not mistaken) is for one to click on the HR list and have it automatically break ties based on greater # of stolen bases. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, exactly that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand now. Though it can be done with a hidden sort key, personally I wouldn't recommend it, because it would make the table sort in a non-standard way, and so would confuse those who expect to be able to control the primary and secondary keys themselves. (I appreciate that those who know how to control the sort keys may be less than a majority of readers; it is a tradeoff in assisting with making Wikipedia easier to use from an overall perspective through a common interface versus trying to satisfy a specific local need. Unlike the cricket case, the desired sorting can be achieved by picking the right columns to sort.) isaacl (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that we can agree that the NTS template does nothing for the table and that we shouldn't use the hidden sort key, can we just leave this table alone and consider this comment resolved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nts template ensures that sorting will work correctly even with the trailing symbols on the numbers, and so I would recommend keeping its use. Regarding the original comment, since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure sorting in a "non-standard way" is a bad thing here. When the secondary sort is just seemingly random, it's unhelpful. For sports (like cricket) where there's a clearly defined secondary sort (and once again, that may not be the case for baseball, but hey...) we should use the tools available to us to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sorting is a "stable sort", meaning that the original table row order is preserved where there are ties in the chosen primary sort key, and so the order is not random. In this case, it means the original chronological ordering is preserved. Adding a hidden sort key to the home run column, for example, that combined home runs and stolen bases would break the stable sorting, and prevent the user from choosing certain combinations of sort keys. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But this "stable sorting" is unhelpful in many cases. I appreciate you telling me how it does sort though, a mystery solved. What combination of sort key would it prevent that would actually be useful? I'm thinking of the reader here, not a scientific approach to tables... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the hidden combined key is added to the home run column, sorting using home runs as a primary key and any column other than stolen bases as a secondary key would not work. For example, sorting by home runs and then by year would not work. Also, it would not be possible to sort by home runs as the primary key in one direction and by stolen bases in the other, such as in descending order by home runs and ascending order by stolen bases as a secondary key.
- Stable sorting is what allows someone to sort the table with any number of sort keys, by sorting the table sequentially from the least-significant key to the most-significant one. It's a common technique used by users of, for example, spreadsheets. (Using the shift-click technique is probably more convenient for readers, since they can click on the column headings starting with the most-significant key downwards, but with the current interface, it isn't very discoverable.) isaacl (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (A clarifying note: when I said stable sorting preserves the original table row order, I meant the order before the sort, and not the original order when the page was first loaded. So when a table is first sorted by the secondary sort key and then the primary one, ties for the primary sort key are resolved by the secondary sort key, due to the stable sorting.) isaacl (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But this "stable sorting" is unhelpful in many cases. I appreciate you telling me how it does sort though, a mystery solved. What combination of sort key would it prevent that would actually be useful? I'm thinking of the reader here, not a scientific approach to tables... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sorting is a "stable sort", meaning that the original table row order is preserved where there are ties in the chosen primary sort key, and so the order is not random. In this case, it means the original chronological ordering is preserved. Adding a hidden sort key to the home run column, for example, that combined home runs and stolen bases would break the stable sorting, and prevent the user from choosing certain combinations of sort keys. isaacl (talk) 16:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure sorting in a "non-standard way" is a bad thing here. When the secondary sort is just seemingly random, it's unhelpful. For sports (like cricket) where there's a clearly defined secondary sort (and once again, that may not be the case for baseball, but hey...) we should use the tools available to us to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nts template ensures that sorting will work correctly even with the trailing symbols on the numbers, and so I would recommend keeping its use. Regarding the original comment, since The Rambling Man agreed to defer judgment to other editors, personally I think it can be considered resolved. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that we can agree that the NTS template does nothing for the table and that we shouldn't use the hidden sort key, can we just leave this table alone and consider this comment resolved? —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand now. Though it can be done with a hidden sort key, personally I wouldn't recommend it, because it would make the table sort in a non-standard way, and so would confuse those who expect to be able to control the primary and secondary keys themselves. (I appreciate that those who know how to control the sort keys may be less than a majority of readers; it is a tradeoff in assisting with making Wikipedia easier to use from an overall perspective through a common interface versus trying to satisfy a specific local need. Unlike the cricket case, the desired sorting can be achieved by picking the right columns to sort.) isaacl (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, exactly that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. Because even without the nts template, you would still have to click the SB first before the HR (basically, it's sorting exactly the same way as it would have without the template). What TRM wants here (if I'm not mistaken) is for one to click on the HR list and have it automatically break ties based on greater # of stolen bases. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. How many general readers know about "shift clicking"? Virtually none of them I'd suggest. I think for certain tables it's much more convenient for our reader to force the sorting. What about Olympic medal tables which should always sort by golds, then silvers, then bronzes, when sorting by each type of medal? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as I said, using shift-click isn't very discoverable. The standard technique of sorting by the least-significant key first, and so forth up to sorting by the most-significant key last remains available. Editors do force sorting by organizing the original table in the order deemed most useful (I won't go into details on the medal table sorting here, since it is off-topic). Making a column with one value actually be a combination of two columns for sorting purposes takes away the ability of readers to choose their own sort order. If only one order is ever desirable, then the ability to sort can be removed entirely. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on two grounds. One, I may wish to sort by surname and by "best performance" where "best performance" is defined by most homers then most stolen bases, or most stolen bases then most homers. So removing sorting is inadequate. Secondly, I don't think Olympic medal tables are off-topic. They have a "traditional" sort mechanism, which doesn't follow the "stable" sorting you describe, yet they're just dandy. There's no good reason why other lists with such "traditional" sorting should be denied helpful and intuitive sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that it's important to give readers the ability to define their own sort keys. I believe the article should not pre-determine that they must always sort based on a combination of home runs + stolen bases, though. If readers want to sort the table by home runs, then surnames, then stolen bases, they would not be able to do so with the home run column actually sorting based on a combination value of home runs + stolen bases. Or if readers want to see who has the most power while being slow on the base paths, they would want to be able to sort in descending order of home runs and ascending order of stolen bases. I apologize if I've failed to explain the term "stable sort" adequately: it is not a sorting order and so does not relate to the concept of sorting by a pre-determined combination of values. It just means that when you choose a new sort key, ties are not broken randomly, but are based on the current order. You need this to be able to support sorting on surname then another column, as in your example, whether or not the other column has a hidden sort key value.
- Regarding Olympic medal tables, I'm not sure that when sorting by silvers, all readers want ties for silvers to be broken by golds, then bronzes. (To be honest, I'm not sure who would sort by silvers anyway.) Nonetheless, it is possible for readers to sort an Olympic medal table using any set of primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. keys. To sort by silvers, golds, and bronzes, for example, the reader first clicks on the bronze heading, then the gold heading, then the silver heading. isaacl (talk) 18:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there probably is a solution to my issue, just one that needs proper explanation to all readers. Currently the Mediawiki software is clearly not mature enough to achieve what we need without intricate coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases where the desired sorting is based strictly on the existing columns, and not on calculated values (such as a percentage based on two columns), I think the most beneficial approach is to educate readers on how they can sort on multiple columns. This gives them the flexibility to decide on any ordering they want. In this case, they can first sort the table based on stolen bases, then sort it based on home runs. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, so a % of two cols is okay? Or any other formula? That would be the case here or for the cricket lists I've been talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of making the sort order obvious to readers, personally I would prefer that the result of the actual formula (be it a percentage, or something else) be a column in the table, and then readers can explicitly click on that column and get a sorting based on it. That way it is crystal clear what the sort order is. (I don't want to digress too much in this featured list review, so perhaps we can take further discussion on sorting in general elsewhere?) isaacl (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I understand. It's really important to the FL community that we resolve this, there are hundreds, if not thousands of lists that use slightly more intricate sorting to resolve the shortcomings of the software, would like to take this further. Your place or mine? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TRM, as per your previous comment and Isaacl's request above, may I please request that this point be deferred to him and me. The issue seems to be more about an overall WP MOS formatting issue that is still unsolved, rather than this specific list violating any existing WP guidelines. In addition, the discussion thread is becoming excessively long for readability purposes (especially given that this is now an FL community issue). However, if you believe this thread must stay, feel free to keep it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I understand. It's really important to the FL community that we resolve this, there are hundreds, if not thousands of lists that use slightly more intricate sorting to resolve the shortcomings of the software, would like to take this further. Your place or mine? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of making the sort order obvious to readers, personally I would prefer that the result of the actual formula (be it a percentage, or something else) be a column in the table, and then readers can explicitly click on that column and get a sorting based on it. That way it is crystal clear what the sort order is. (I don't want to digress too much in this featured list review, so perhaps we can take further discussion on sorting in general elsewhere?) isaacl (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, so a % of two cols is okay? Or any other formula? That would be the case here or for the cricket lists I've been talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases where the desired sorting is based strictly on the existing columns, and not on calculated values (such as a percentage based on two columns), I think the most beneficial approach is to educate readers on how they can sort on multiple columns. This gives them the flexibility to decide on any ordering they want. In this case, they can first sort the table based on stolen bases, then sort it based on home runs. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there probably is a solution to my issue, just one that needs proper explanation to all readers. Currently the Mediawiki software is clearly not mature enough to achieve what we need without intricate coding. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree on two grounds. One, I may wish to sort by surname and by "best performance" where "best performance" is defined by most homers then most stolen bases, or most stolen bases then most homers. So removing sorting is inadequate. Secondly, I don't think Olympic medal tables are off-topic. They have a "traditional" sort mechanism, which doesn't follow the "stable" sorting you describe, yet they're just dandy. There's no good reason why other lists with such "traditional" sorting should be denied helpful and intuitive sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Four players are also members of the 500 home run club." This lists five players, not four.
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to repeat Ryan Braun's first name in the lead. Unlike with the Bonds family, there's no risk of confusion regarding his name.
- Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 (Talk) 22:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see support from four users, dating back to August 10. Shouldn't this list be promoted by now? —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no rush and I'm sure the next time a director does a sweep of promotions, this will be given due consideration. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I was just getting a little worried as the last sweep of promotions was done yesterday. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, everything will be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reassurances TRM. I'm sorry if my comments come about as complaining or sulking, as this is not my intent. I just find it extremely peculiar how three other lists that have exactly the same amount of support and were nominated later than this one can be passed while this list ends up being simply placed under the "Older Nominations" category. Something's terribly wrong when there are no longer any outstanding issues needed to be addressed and yet this list remains unpassed when it is basically an "equal" to the three that were passed. With all the resolved comments and support votes, I really don't see anything else I can do with this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was an oversight? Have you asked the FL director who closed the others why yours wasn't closed? I doubt there's a conspiracy... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never asked. I trust you and the other two FL directors in making wise and prudent choices in closing. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should ask. We're only human. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thank you for your helpful advice. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should ask. We're only human. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never asked. I trust you and the other two FL directors in making wise and prudent choices in closing. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was an oversight? Have you asked the FL director who closed the others why yours wasn't closed? I doubt there's a conspiracy... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your reassurances TRM. I'm sorry if my comments come about as complaining or sulking, as this is not my intent. I just find it extremely peculiar how three other lists that have exactly the same amount of support and were nominated later than this one can be passed while this list ends up being simply placed under the "Older Nominations" category. Something's terribly wrong when there are no longer any outstanding issues needed to be addressed and yet this list remains unpassed when it is basically an "equal" to the three that were passed. With all the resolved comments and support votes, I really don't see anything else I can do with this list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, everything will be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I was just getting a little worried as the last sweep of promotions was done yesterday. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is an issue but I'm the only one, so I'm happy for my comment to be considered just that, a comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI think Rambling Man's point is very minor. I would think otherhwise if the table would be as large as the current page. Also the system with shift does not work on my keyboard. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 15:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks GOP. The only problem is, I think you can only vote once, which you did back on August 7th. As a result, only one of your votes of support can be counted —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My error. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks GOP. The only problem is, I think you can only vote once, which you did back on August 7th. As a result, only one of your votes of support can be counted —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [35].
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having done much work on the article, including starting a peer review and applying necessary changes, I believe it finally meets the criteria for becoming a featured list. Holiday56 (talk) 15:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Calvin999 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments by Calvin999
Aaron • You Da One 23:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Aaron • You Da One 16:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Issues above have been adressed. Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Source comments –
|
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
|
- Support – Lead is well written, tables are properly formatted and sourcing is consistent and professional. I did a few tweaks if you don't mind, but otherwise great work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One quick query: using "NA" for unknown directors implies that the video never had a director. I've seen other FLs use a dash instead and have a note at the bottom ("—" denotes an unknown director). That should clarify any confusion with the directors.—WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Since n/a is also an abbreviation for "not available", I think it would be fine to use the template. Many featured lists alternate between using the template and notation. Holiday56 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds reasonable. I'm okay then. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since n/a is also an abbreviation for "not available", I think it would be fine to use the template. Many featured lists alternate between using the template and notation. Holiday56 (talk) 05:14, 1 September 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 17:11, 4 September 2012 [36].
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets the criteria and is loosely based on FL List of Test cricket triple centuries. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Not sure why you need a No. column in the first table as it sorts the same as the date.
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "14 players have have scored 90–99 runs in an innings".Also fix the double word in that sentence.What makes Itsonlycricket (references 3 and 5) a reliable source?Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done :) →TSU tp* 01:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Vensatry |
---|
Comments
Further comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 04:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - There "strike rate" is mentioned but I found it pretty less use and if I wan't to know balls faced, I will have to calculate. If I were reading an article on centuries (regardless of format), balls faced will be an important thing for me and most of the readers would want to know that how many balls were faced. Thus, instead of including SR, I believe that balls should be kept or both. TheSpecialUser TSU 12:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! It looks much better now :) TheSpecialUser TSU 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Initial comments –
Zia Khan 17:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments –
Zia Khan 10:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved on 7 August
Zia Khan 09:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — Nice work. Zia Khan 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
* The lead caption should use "have" rather than "has" in the first sentence. And "out" is not required in the last sentence.
Harrias talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias talk 13:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly technicalities to work on there, although the lead in general could do with a polish. Harrias talk 11:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Harrias talk 21:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Sanath jayasuriya portrait.jpg – Here's somewhat of a problem. You can't cut a part out of a work licensed under CC-BY 2.0 and release it under a different license.
No other copyright related problems found. Goodraise 18:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not an expert when it comes to copyright, but the only condition of CC Attribution 2.0 Generic licence is attribution, and the is no condition of share-alike. Please correct if I am wrong. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, but this is a special case. When using a work licensed under CC-BY 2.0, you don't become the copyright holder of the original work. While you can create works based upon the original work, so called "derivative works", you can only release such a work under some license if you are the derivative work's copyright holder, which you are only if your changes/additions to the original work, unlike mere cropping, meet the threshold of originality. Goodraise 14:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — jfd34 (talk) 11:53, 2 September 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.