Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2012: Difference between revisions
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 8 |
update |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Javed Miandad/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Foot in Mouth Award/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Foot in Mouth Award/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Selena/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Selena/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:05, 13 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 NapHit 15:05, 13 October 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arjona has won and been nominated for numerous awards; he has won one Grammy Award and one Latin Grammy Award, both for his tenth studio album, Adentro (2005). He has been nominated five times at the Billboard Latin Music Awards and four times at the Lo Nuestro Awards. Overall, Arjona has received 13 awards from 57 nominations. I wrote this list from zero and now, after completely rewriting it, i consider it is ready for the bronze star. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:Comments
Erick (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good job! Erick (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jonatalk to me 23:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from AJona1992
|
- Support but can you wikilink Guatemala? Best, Jonatalk to me 23:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And of course I can ;) — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:27, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zac 23:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Zac
|
- Support. Zac (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 23:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Now as all the issues raised by The Rambling Man were resolved, I checked the list once again and couldn't find anything wrong with it. Good job. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose bit of a mess I'm afraid.
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment didn't check too hard then! Lead says 16 awards, infobox total says 16 awards, infobox actually adds up to 18 awards. I don't see Lo Nuestro in the infobox at all. Looks like you forgot them in the lead too... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Might use a little more massaging, but it seems to be acceptable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:34, 12 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 NapHit 15:05, 13 October 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Zia Khan 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is well referenced, properly arranged and based upon the pre-existing list of the same category. I believe this fulfills the FLC standards. Please, feel free to make your comments and suggestion. Zia Khan 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments regarding WP:ACCESS The table scopes are not valid: where they say [reply]
scope="col; style="width:Xpx"
, it should be scope="col" style="width:Xpx"
– the semicolon needs to be a closing quote. Also, there are no col scopes or a table title on your key, and you should ideally use {{dagger|alt=...}}
, etc. and include the meaning in each use of the symbol templates. ajmint (talk•edits) 09:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Zia Khan 11:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 14:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support ajmint (talk•edits) 15:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Further comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets the standards. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:30, 10 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, 9 October 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An odd little list that I came across. I have improved it significantly, and think that while it is more than a bit quirky, it meets the FL standards. As always, all comments, questions and suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Harrias talk 16:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 14:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No obvious problems now, the most entertaining list I've seen for a long while Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very nice little list. Agree with Jim on the entertainment value - we need more lists like this! Dana boomer (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support– Meets the standards. Zia Khan 16:27, 9 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, 9 October 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Jonatalk to me 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...I worked hard on this list and would like to see it have a bronze-star at the top. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I recently copy-edited this article, and I must say, it certainly meets the criteria. Well done, Jona. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 15:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you
Best, Jonatalk to me 16:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 00:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Good work. Erick (talk) 03:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 13:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 17:12, 9 October 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the FL criteria. This is my fifth colleges list, and I've tried to include improvements along the way as they've been suggested for each nomination. Any comments should be speedily addressed. Thanks in advance! Ruby 2010/2013 03:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 05:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have no stylistic concerns, having already supported the layout when it was used for South Dakota's list; the prose looks good to me too (looked first at DYK, second review now still doesn't present anything). Keep them coming in. GRAPPLE X 00:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you for the support! Ruby 2010/2013 02:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I did a little copyedit, but I couldn't see anything worth bringing up here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did a very short spot-check and found that Waldorf College was sold in 2009 and became for-profit. Please check that others are up to date. Otherwise Support. Reywas92Talk 04:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, Carnegie still lists Waldorf as a private not-for-profit institution, though the NCES has updated their information. I've adjusted the Waldorf entry accordingly. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Ruby 2010/2013 02:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs) |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments good, some picks...
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 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, 9 October 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): PresN 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking around this morning to see which sf award list to do next, and when I looked up I had rewritten this one. I now present the Andre Norton award- hooked onto the Nebula Awards and run by the same organization, it's essentially the Nebula Award for the best young adult novel of the year. As such, the list looks eerily similar to Nebula Award for Best Novel, an FL that I passed through here a few months ago, and should reflect comments raised in that and similar FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ajmint (talk•edits) 20:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments some prose stuff, otherwise looking good:
ajmint (talk•edits) 23:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support TBrandley 23:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
"in the previous year" - In the preceding year, perhaps?
- No other comments from me... prose looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Thanks! --PresN 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. As to be expected from PresN — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Short and sweet; very nice work. Looking through this list makes me need to go grab several of these books off my shelves and re-read them... :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 6 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, 9 October 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This man again. And he's nominating that man again—a man Mel Brooks described as "Jimmy Stewart from Mars". I'm pretty sure this one should be straightforward enough. It's based, loosely, on Spike Lee filmography though the differences should be clear enough. This is as comprehensive as I feel it's going to be (I don't think there's anything missing from it and as you can see from the sourcing there's been quite a few different places combed through to be sure. I even tracked down his television ad!); though I will need to keep an eye on The Cleveland Show (eurgh) to update any future episodes he appears in. Yes, the man who based a film about infanticide on the birth of his own disabled daughter is on a primetime US cartoon now. As always, I'll be on hand to respond to any questions and address any comments pretty promptly. GRAPPLE X 05:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support looks pretty solid. Well done! TBrandley 20:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Add publisher (The Onion) to Ref. 34, match it with Ref. 37
- Just a suggestion, but you might want to add publishers for some of the magazines, like Total Film (Future Publishing) and the International Herald Tribune (The New York Times Company)
- Those are the only issues I could find, and they are super-minor.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I've added additional publishing info where possible; the reference to Pitchfork Media didn't get one as it seems to be its own parent company rather than an imprint of something else. GRAPPLE X 04:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
On the issue of which column to put first: Many screen readers are able to identify a "row header" and speak it when the user is navigating around a table. Let me take the example of the "David Lynch's film appearances and roles" table. Someone using JAWS, for example, could navigate down the Other column. They could set JAWS to read out the headers along with each cell, so they would hear "Other, 1966, Animator"; when they moved down one cell, they would hear "Other, 1968, Editor" - this is because the Year is being identified as the row header.
Now, if we made the Film entries into row headers (I'd prefer to call it Title because the whole row is the film, but that's just a nit-pick), the JAWS user would hear "Other, Six Figures Getting Sick, Animator"; followed by "Other, The Alphabet, Editor". Don't you think that is preferable?
If we wanted to change to using the titles as row headers, we could simply move the '! scope="row"' markup onto the Film entries in the table and most modern screen readers that I'm aware of would respect that and use those titles as row headers. It is possible that older and more primitive readers may ignore the markup and simply pick the first column as row headers, so swapping the Film column with the Year column would cover more cases than leaving it alone.
@Grapple: I don't intend to prescribe (or proscribe!) anything here, but I hope I can point you in the direction of improving access (and for whom you are improving it). You need to agree between yourself and the reviewers what are the best row headers and how to weigh the value of having them in the first column compared with your aesthetic preference for the year first. I can't make that decision for you, but it was that consideration that drove the Discography folks to putting title first. Hope that helps.
On other accessibility concerns, I'd recommend not using constructions like "Here Today Gone Tomorrow"<br/>"Truck Stop" to make lists of titles - using {{ubl | "Here Today Gone Tomorrow" | "Truck Stop" }} will produce a real list for the screen readers while displaying the same for sighted viewers like this:
- "Here Today Gone Tomorrow"
- "Truck Stop"
While I'm here, can I just point out that we are moving to HTML 5 very soon. In that version, tags like <center>...</center>
are deprecated, so I think our best articles ought to be demonstrating best practice such as using style="text-align:center;" instead. I'd also use style="width:65px;" rather than width=65 for the same reason. It's not crucial because mediawiki software and browsers will cope with ancient markup for some time to come, but at some point it will have to be updated and we can encourage good markup by providing those who will copy and adapt our best work with good examples. --RexxS (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha. I had assumed that a screenreader would give the full row rather than being able to break it up, and would read "1966, Six Figures Getting Sick... etc ... Animator"; given that insight I guess it makes much more sense to change it. I'll get to that now; same goes for {{ubl}}, etc. Thanks for that, as I wouldn't have realised it was an issue otherwise. GRAPPLE X 18:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made the changes to the film table; will do the TV/web one now. I'll set the headings there based on the titles of the episodes in question rather than the series as it would seem to make the most since given the above. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. GRAPPLE X 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification and your time Rexx, much appreciated. NapHit (talk) 20:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. GRAPPLE X 19:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have made the changes to the film table; will do the TV/web one now. I'll set the headings there based on the titles of the episodes in question rather than the series as it would seem to make the most since given the above. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
- What makes Pitchfork Media (ref 32) a reliable source?
- Per their staff page, the site can be seen to retain employed editors and journalists; their editorial staff consists of several people (the article used in this list was written by one of the site's associate editors). I feel the site is professional enough about its standard of editorial practice (their taste and pretension notwithstanding of course :P). GRAPPLE X 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes Consequence of Sound (ref 33) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The site seems to be held in reasonably high regard by more established media, enjoying a partnership with Time magazine ([8]), while its reviews are collected by the harsher-than-we-are Metacritic. As for its editorial practices, their about page mentions that they retain an employed staff and similarly lists their editing staff. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just gave this a good look over. After all the suggestions that have been fixed, this page is in prime shape. I vote aye.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:17, 5 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, 9 October 2012 [9].
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing a possible future FT on the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, including separate articles on the larger nature reserves it contains. Not all the reserves have sufficient information available to reach FA/GA, so this is a summary of the basic information to ensure that even the 5-ha patches appear somewhere in the topic. I've spent some time on the overview, so I hope the article as a whole makes sense, thanks in advance for your comments, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support looks good. Well done! TBrandley 19:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Thanks for the review and comments, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk (talk)
Arsenikk (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Thanks for your support, comments made a real improvement to the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Many thanks for taking the time to review and comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Scanned the references for formatting/reliability issues, and the only minor things I saw were an improper hyphen in the publisher of ref 33 (should be an en dash instead) and the need for a space before the access date of ref 40.Giants2008 (Talk) 18:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, I missed the hyphen because it wasn't in a page range, both done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Comments - Overall, very nice. A few thoughts:[reply]
- "form on sheltered parts of the coast, in the lee of islands or behind spits" Is this a series of three, or are the last two examples of the first?
- I've added an AE style comma to make it clear that it's three Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Grassland is represented by grazing pasture" Is this grazed by wildlife or livestock?
- Added livestock
- "A 2005 survey at six North Norfolk coastal sites" Is there any way to get an update on this, or was it a one-off survey?
- Unfortunately, it appears to be a one-off Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "who made overnight stays in the area in 1999" Again, any way to update this? It's over a decade out of date...
- As above, I thought it better to put in old data than nothing at all, but these surveys are few and far between. I haven't been able to find anything more recent Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a "bird hide"? I'm assuming it's an area of protective cover, but haven't heard this term before.
Once these are addressed, I think I'll be happy to support. Dana boomer (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- bird hide linked now at each occurrence (since the list is sortable), they are called "blinds" in the US Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I was completely wrong! I thought it was someplace the birds hid from people, not where people hid from birds :) Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and useful comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for the responses. Too bad that there aren't any more recent surveys...but I agree that information that is a bit out of date is better than no information at all. Changed to support. Dana boomer (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support. Believe me, birds can hide very well without help! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 7 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, 9 October 2012 [10].
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. Also this will be the first of its kind. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Kürbis (✔) 12:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 12:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Publisher of ref 6 (The Economic Times) should be italicized.
Done
- Hyphen in the title of ref 2 should instead be an en dash.
Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Well and formatted fine. I would guess it needs a few more references, though not very necessary. @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 15:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support TBrandley 14:34, 6 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, 9 October 2012 [11].
- Nominator(s): Zia Khan 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a list with inclusion FL criteria, on a notable topic about a notable individual. Actually about one of the best bowlers in the history of cricket, and one of the greatest all-rounders the game had seen. It'll be an attribute to a Cricket Legend to take this to a FL status. Comments or suggestions are appreciated. Zia Khan 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. No. 4 does not have an access date.Check the publisher name in ref. no. 14. It is written twice.Had number of dab links last time I checked. So make sure you have none of that.Economy rate column does not sort properly.- All fixed! Thanks for your review and help. Zia Khan 05:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--Vyom25 (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment
The links to list of fifers at the "External links" appears to be dead/incorrect. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Zia Khan 15:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments very good.
|
Comments –
"Hadlee was the first bowler to reach 400 wickets in the format." Which format is this?- Done.
"he had claimed five-wickets hauls...". "wickets" → "wicket"?Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support TBrandley 23:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:02, 4 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 [12].
- 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 [13].
- 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 [14].
- 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[15] 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 [18].
- 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 [19].
- 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" ([20]), "pop-rap" ([21]) and "rap/dance/pop" ([22]). 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.