Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 5 |
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 17:12, 2 October 2012
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:12, 2 October 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): — Tomica (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I have worked hard on it for certain period of time. Christian Bale is well known actor who deserves his own filmography page so that's the reason I created it. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see how much the film budget was and its theater gross. For all the users who oppose I would like to post their comments so I can improve the article. Thank You— Tomica (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ajmint (talk•edits) 22:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 21:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Also, page number for Ref 35? Ruby 2010/2013 19:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the reference. — Tomica (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit of copyediting and am now prepared to support. Keep up the good work. Ruby 2010/2013 04:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Ruby2010. — Tomica (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 00:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The lead is comprehensive, tables are formatted properly and references are in check. Nice work. Rayman95 (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
|
- Support Very nice work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:52, 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 17:12, 2 October 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having done much work on the article, I feel the article is ready to be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
Let's see:
And that's about it. If nothing else occurs to me, then I'll have no reservations supporting. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Looks great, again. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 15:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment very good.
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Prose comment from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 26 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 17:12, 2 October 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It;s important for WP:BASEBALL for this to become a FL. Joining the 300 win club is seen as one of the highest achievement in baseball, along with joining the 3,000 strikeout club, 300 save club, 500 home run club, or 3,000 hit club. Incidentally, those are all FLs. This will complete the set. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets all 6 criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- " In total, 24 pitchers " In total is redundant, but avoid starting the sentence with a number...
- Thought about how to handle that one for a while, was leaning towards "There are 24 members..." but went with spelling out 24. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "finishing his career" would prefer "ending his career"
- How about "and retired"? Can change to "ending his career" if you're dead set on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "suppressed offensive production" I don't understand this phrase or how a stadium design could achieve whatever it is...
- Some stadiums are hitter's parks while others are pitcher's parks. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as how far the fences are from home plate. Also, stadiums at higher altitude have more offensive production because the ball will travel further in the thinner air. The stadiums that were new in the 1960s (Dodger Stadium, Shea Stadium, the Astrodome) were definitively pitcher's parks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is genuinely interesting. I think a little note for the non-baseball experts wouldn't go amiss here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Something in addition to the link to pitcher's park, you mean? I can think about how to do that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is genuinely interesting. I think a little note for the non-baseball experts wouldn't go amiss here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some stadiums are hitter's parks while others are pitcher's parks. This could be due to a number of reasons, such as how far the fences are from home plate. Also, stadiums at higher altitude have more offensive production because the ball will travel further in the thinner air. The stadiums that were new in the 1960s (Dodger Stadium, Shea Stadium, the Astrodome) were definitively pitcher's parks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't it "300 winS club" the grammatically correct version? To non-baseball readers the title needs to be explained and cited. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point, but as you can see from the sources[4] and from the similar lists I posted above (3,000 strikeout club, 300 save club, 500 home run club, 3,000 hit club), the term which should perhaps be plural is most commonly used in the singular form. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "World War II military service, such as Bob Feller". "Feller" → "Feller's"?
- Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammatically, "that" needs to be added before "were pitcher's parks" for the sentence as a whole to work.
- Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be nice to have the all-time leader in wins mentioned in-text. That's an important fact I'd expect to see in the prose, not just in a photo caption.
- Added. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kid Nichols caption needs some sort of citation, since nothing in the prose or list verifies his age. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref added. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*"Early in the history of professional baseball, many of the rules of present day baseball were not in place; the distance pitchers threw to home plate was shorter than today, and pitchers were able to use foreign substances to alter the direction of the ball." - Relevance not clear to people without a background in baseball. - Relevance not clear to people without a background in baseball.
|
- Support on prose and images. Solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TBrandley 03:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Congrats man! Been quietly watching you improve this list from the shadows, looks great! Staxringold talkcontribs 14:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Glad it's up to par. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:01, 2 October 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 17:12, 2 October 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is an attempt at an innovative list; creating a list of every aircraft, its registration, name and service history is deemed unencyclopedic by consensus at the WikiProject, so instead the list focuses on the use of the aircraft by the airline. As an aviation enthusiast, this is exactly the information I want: an image, the numbers and a description, a combination which is otherwise overlooked in airline articles. Any feedback is appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
This is a comment.
|
- Support MilborneOne (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support with comments Nothing major that needs fixing, so I'll support now, but two minor point
- Domestic/domestically is overworked, can you lose or vary some ("internal" for example?)
- Your refs using templates end in a full stop, the untemplated ones don't. For consistency, I'd make them all full stopped
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback and support. Interesting comments—I've never even noticed the periods before. I rephrased about half the domestic/domestically words. Arsenikk (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- One more I just noticed while checking changes: the titles of refs 12 and 45 have hyphens that should be en dashes instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The sources use hyphens incorrectly, and I'm never quite sure if we should leave them or correct it. Arsenikk (talk) 09:05, 2 October 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 17:12, 2 October 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having done much work on the article, I feel it may finally meet the criteria for promotion as a featured list. Holiday56 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Sufur222
Overall, this looks very good. The speed that you redid this one is certainly impressive. Only a few things:
Apart from these things, I feel this is ready for FL status. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 07:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Great work, as always. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 16:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I hate LMFAO, I believe that the list is ready for FL Status after Sufur's comments are resolved. --Khanassassin ☪ 11:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe LMFAO are far from hip hop artists. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Electro hip-hop" is among the genres listed in the infobox on their page; they are also explicitly referred to as an "electro-rap duo" on their AllMusic page, which also places them in the rap genre amongst established hip-hop artists. Other renowned critical review sites list them as "party hop" ([9]), "pop-rap" ([10]) and "rap/dance/pop" ([11]). I'd say that their utilization of the genre in their much of their music has to be somehow acknowledged in the article. Holiday56 (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe LMFAO are far from hip hop artists. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment
"who approved their signing to his label Interscope Records." not keen on the use of approved, would prefer who signed them to his label Interscope Records.NapHit (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Holiday56 (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The prose struck me as a little informal in places, but given the topic and the lack of any real problems, I'm happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TBrandley 00:13, 2 October 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.