Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/October 2012: Difference between revisions
update |
Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Archive 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/George Harrison discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/George Harrison discography/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Deccan Chargers cricketers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Deccan Chargers cricketers/archive1}} |
Revision as of 17:25, 16 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 not promoted by Giants2008 17:25, 16 October 2012 [1].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]
Known for his clumsy character Inspector Clouseau and his many comic roles on radio, Peter Sellers was one of the best known comedians of his generation. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Sellers page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. A number of very good people have assisted in specific areas, including Rothorpe, who re-worked the lead, RexxS, who advised on the table format, Br'er Rabbit, who cleaned up the citations and J Milburn who looked at the images. We are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 03:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments I think this article still has some way to go before it reaches FL quality. I've gone over and it and made some changes here; please revert if I've made things worse.
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The biggest sticking point for me is the lead – it's incredibly brief. By my count it's about 860 characters long, which wouldn't qualify it for DYK, let alone FL. Obviously it needs to cover the major aspects of the rest of the list, but it doesn't mention Sellers's career on either stage or record at all. I see that on the talk page it was decided that there wasn't much of a need to discuss Sellers himself, but personally I'd disagree with that – per WP:Summary style, I would expect the lead of this article to give more background on who Peter Sellers was.
- Now extended. We feel this word count now mirrors others at FL in terms of quantity. -- CassiantoTalk 12:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's certainly a significant improvement, but I do still feel that the lead needs to at least mention Sellers's careers on stage and record, since obviously that comprises part of the scope of the list. Just a short sentence on each would probably suffice for me personally. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ATD: it's now been tweaked to include that missing information. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wow; pretty solid. TBrandley 21:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tate, I'm looking forward to your next FAC so I can return this favour. -- CassiantoTalk 23:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Your in luck, "Nightswimming" will be at FAC soon. Also, some FLCs also very soon. Cheers, TBrandley 05:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hi RM, Thanks very much for your comments. I think I've addressed them all fully, but if I've missed anything, or there is something else you spot, then please let us know. Thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Oppose- from a quick glance at Amazon, the list is incomplete: hhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0002CH8TW and http://www.amazon.co.uk/Million-Sellers-Peter/dp/B002EGLFP2. Who knows what else is missing. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 01:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not original releases by Sellers, but re-hashed excerpts put out by third parties, the contents of which are covered in Sellers's original recordings. As such they really shouldn't be on the list at all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, no problem. Oppose is stricken Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 16:50, 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 not promoted by NapHit 15:05, 13 October 2012 [2].
- Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A discography of the "quiet Beatle", George Harrison. He was nicknamed as such because he did not contribute much in the songwriting. After the Beatles break-up, Harrison recorded the most-successful post-Beatles album, All Things Must Pass, and several other successful albums and singles. In the last years he was a member of the supergroup Travelling Wilburys. The discography follows the contemporary standard format. Regards.Kürbis (✔) 16:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
"George Harrison was once invited by his friend Paul McCartney to watch the skiffle band The Quarrymen playing." This is a weak and non-specific statement. When was he invited to watch them play?- The date is unknown but he joined in 1958--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1960 the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet." This suggests that Harrison joined The Beatles after 1960 rather than the Quarrymen in 1958.
- I reworded it slightly--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still several problems with this:
You need to make it clear that the Quarrymen were Paul McCartney's band.- It now says he beceame (note the typo) a member in 1968.
- The spelling has been corrected, but the date is still wrong (see below)--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- "Two years later the band was changed to The Beatles and Harrison eventually became a full member and the lead guitarist for the quartet". This is still incorrectly worded:
- He was already a full member of the band before it changed its name.
- The band was not changed to The Beatles - the band name was.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Actually Lennon formed the band, 2) Corrected, 3) I am not sure if this band changed its name to Beatles. I was told that "changed their band name" is incorrect English
- "changed their band name" isn't particularly good English, but the previous phrasing was definitely worse. The current phrasing is better, but the dates are wrong. The Beatles article says he joined the group (whatever it was called) in early 1958. The same article says they adopted the name "The Beatles" in August 1960. It still also says "eventually became a member and the lead guitarist for the quartet" which reads oddly as he was already a member.--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it was previously "full member" but some user insisted it was false... Now reverted back. Also fixed the date.
- "changed their band name" isn't particularly good English, but the previous phrasing was definitely worse. The current phrasing is better, but the dates are wrong. The Beatles article says he joined the group (whatever it was called) in early 1958. The same article says they adopted the name "The Beatles" in August 1960. It still also says "eventually became a member and the lead guitarist for the quartet" which reads oddly as he was already a member.--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still several problems with this:
- I reworded it slightly--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In the later years, his musical effort however was distinguished by some songwriting." This seems incomplete.- "Harrison growth as a songwriter was evidenced on such tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something"." Needs to be "Harrison's growth" and how do these songs evidence the growth?
- The songs are one of the most respected and were very successful
- Then give their success as evidence of his growth.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "...evidenced on such successful tracks..." would be better as "...evidenced by such successful tracks..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "...evidenced on such successful tracks..." would be better as "...evidenced by such successful tracks..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Then give their success as evidence of his growth.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The songs are one of the most respected and were very successful
At the start of the third paragraph, say when the Beatles broke-up.- Done
"in" should be "on".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done
- Done
"were still active", I suggest "remained active".- Done
The Wonderwall album was release in 1968, but the context of the sentence after talk of the break-up in the previous sentence seems to suggest the album was released after the break-up."The album produced one of his most successful and famous songs, such as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." Which of these two songs is the one you mean?- Actually the first, but now as both topped the charts somehow...
This still says "one of", but names two songs.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done
- Actually the first, but now as both topped the charts somehow...
- "His next albums were not very successful, receiving silver, gold and platinum certications". Spelling of "certifications" needs to be corrected. Is this three albums that you are referring to; if so which three, as the table does not show an album after All Things Must Pass that received a platinum rating until Cloud Nine in 1987.
- Corrected typo.
- The rest of the issues still need to be addressed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what three albums... Simply all albums after this.
- If you mean all of this subsequent albums, say so, e.g. something like: "His subsequent releases were less successful..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Next is for me the same as subsequent, but I changed it anyway
- If you mean all of this subsequent albums, say so, e.g. something like: "His subsequent releases were less successful..."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what three albums... Simply all albums after this.
- The rest of the issues still need to be addressed.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected typo.
- Why is the reference to The Concert for Bangladesh preceding Live Aid by 14 years relevant?
- Not exactly sure what you mean. The footnote or the mention of this statement?
- I mean. Why is it relevant to the discography that the concert preceded Live Aid by 14 years.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an interesting info; always paraphrasing from the tables is lame.
- But why is it interesting in a discography and why is it interesting that it was 14 years before Live Aid?--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the wording implies that it was bigger than Live Aid, which was to my knowledge the largest concert
- But why is it interesting in a discography and why is it interesting that it was 14 years before Live Aid?--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is an interesting info; always paraphrasing from the tables is lame.
- I mean. Why is it relevant to the discography that the concert preceded Live Aid by 14 years.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly sure what you mean. The footnote or the mention of this statement?
"After the release of "All Those Years Ago", all songs beginning with Gone Troppo, the worst-charting album only after Electronic Sound, did not chart; this changed after the release of "Got My Mind Set on You"." This is muddled and needs to be broken down into separate sentences. Make it clear the "All Those Years Ago" was a single and state which album it was from. Why not just say that Harrison had a run of six singles between 1981 and 1986 that did not chart.- Done
"Bearing the several flops in mind, Harrison joined the supergroup Traveling Wilburys in 1988..." Are you saying that he joined the supergroup, because of the several flops?- Removed that bit. I think I was mistaken
- "The group released on 18 October 1988 its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which received three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10." I suggest this be rephrased as "On 18 October 1988, the group released its debut album Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1, which was certified three-times platinum and peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10."
- Done
- You need a full stop after "top 10".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Rereading this, I think "peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10" would be better as "reached the top 10 of several music charts around the world."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok done
- Rereading this, I think "peaked at several music charts worldwide in the top 10" would be better as "reached the top 10 of several music charts around the world."--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- You need a full stop after "top 10".--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Not sure that Concert for George is relevant in a Harrison discography as he does not play on it. If nothing else, that should be made clear.
- I think it was a very important release and should be mentioned to round off the lead.
- It might be important in a history of George Harrison, but it is not part of his discography.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it notable but will wait what others say
- It might be important in a history of George Harrison, but it is not part of his discography.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it was a very important release and should be mentioned to round off the lead.
- Tables
NZL and SWE in the first table are the other way around in the following album tables.- Thanks. Not sure how I missed that...
- The note indicates that a strike indicates that an album release did not chart. Is it confirmed that the records were released in all of these countries and failed to chart in each case. Did they sometimes not chart because they were not released or is because the source does not have the data?
- Some were not released or just did not chart, so I reworded the note.
- "denotes releases that did not chart or were not released." The "releases" needs to be "albums" or "singles" as appropriate.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is unecessary. Also other discographies include this wording.
- By definition, you cannot have a release that was not released, which is why I suggested that you change "releases" to "albums" or "singles", so you would get "denotes albums that did not chart or were not released".--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ok done--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition, you cannot have a release that was not released, which is why I suggested that you change "releases" to "albums" or "singles", so you would get "denotes albums that did not chart or were not released".--DavidCane (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is unecessary. Also other discographies include this wording.
- "denotes releases that did not chart or were not released." The "releases" needs to be "albums" or "singles" as appropriate.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some were not released or just did not chart, so I reworded the note.
--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! I will work on the remaining points. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your responses. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still copyediting issues.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some really quick issues...
A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* "Harrison's debut career began with skiffle group..." debut career? his career is viewed as a whole as its within one industry, so no idea why debut is used, needs to be removed
|
Oppose copyediting issues and sloppy referencing again
- Also do you have a date for when he formed The Rebels, would be helpful for context
- I could not find the date.
- Well if you can't find the date, then you can't start the next sentence with Around this time, when none is given. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Around the time he formed the rebels
- I'm sorry but I'm not sure you understand the issue. You cannot start a sentence with Around this time when you do not specify a date, needs re-wording. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Around the time he formed the rebels
- Well if you can't find the date, then you can't start the next sentence with Around this time, when none is given. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "John Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing and McCartney and Lennon's ability for writing and composing songs led Harrison to his nickname of the "quiet Beatle". This sentence troubles me, firstly I fail to see how the qualities of Lennon and McCartney led to him acquiring this nickname, it reads as if this is how he got the nickname. This is compounded by the source not reflecting what the text says, doesn't mention Lennon's impulsive rhythm guitar playing or Lennon and McCartney's ability for composing songs. By all means mention his nickname was the quiet Beatle, but reflect what the source is saying.
- Done
- Still got issues with this, the new source mentions Lennon and McCartney's songwriting skills, but says nothing about Lennon's guitar playing. The new source also mentions his aversion to the spotlight was a reason for him earning the nickname, that needs including. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about Lennon
- It may not be about Lennon, but when you state the reasons above as leading to Harrison's nickname then they ARE relevant to the article. This has still not been addressed, please alter the sentence to reflect what the sources say. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not about Lennon
- Still got issues with this, the new source mentions Lennon and McCartney's songwriting skills, but says nothing about Lennon's guitar playing. The new source also mentions his aversion to the spotlight was a reason for him earning the nickname, that needs including. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harrison's growth as a songwriter was evidenced by such successful tracks as "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Here Comes the Sun" and "Something". How was it evidenced? What's the difference between these songs and the ones he wrote earlier?
- Explained
- No, now it says they were successful and influential again without saying why there were successful or influential, provide some context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. This is a general, non-controversial statement.
- No it is not a general, non-controversial statement. You cannot say the songs were evidence of his growth with providing a reason why this was. A non-controversial statement would be he wrote the songs. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No need. This is a general, non-controversial statement.
- No, now it says they were successful and influential again without saying why there were successful or influential, provide some context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was certified six-times platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and became the best-selling album by any of the former Beatles." Again a statement like that needs a referenced as it can be challenged
- The reference is displayed
- Where? because it doesn't come at the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is at the end of the paragraph
- No, that source mentions nothing about the album being certified six-times platinum. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is at the end of the paragraph
- Where? because it doesn't come at the end of the sentence. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The album produced such successful songs as chart-topper "My Sweet Lord" and "What Is Life"." This sentence reads poorly, needs re writing. Also how successful were the songs provide some context
- I already stated "chart-topper". Reworded.
- chart-topper is not exactly encyclopaedic, still not enough context, our article says it was the biggest selling single of 1971, also why is What is Life used? what separates this from the other songs on the album?
- Ok, but this does not belong into the discography. "what separates this from the other songs on the album?" because they were the only singles of the album, and the only to peak the charts (Isn't It a Pity was a b-side)
- Actually it does belong in the discography, I would expect more context from a featured list. Mention they were singles to avoid confusion, have a look at some recent discography promotions to see the context they provide. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, but this does not belong into the discography. "what separates this from the other songs on the album?" because they were the only singles of the album, and the only to peak the charts (Isn't It a Pity was a b-side)
- chart-topper is not exactly encyclopaedic, still not enough context, our article says it was the biggest selling single of 1971, also why is What is Life used? what separates this from the other songs on the album?
- "The live album The Concert for Bangladesh was recorded on 1 August 1971 at New York City's Madison Square Garden, and consists of tracks played at the charity event The Concert for Bangladesh, which preceded Live Aid by 14 years." there are so many issues with this sentence its scary. Firstly you go from past to present tense in the sentence. You don't provide any context for the reader, why was there a concert in the first place? Why is it relevant this preceded Live Aid by 14 years, this an article about Harrison's discography not the concert itself, seems irrelevant to me.
- Removed
- instead of repeating the name of the album when you link the concert, pipe it and mention why there was a concert in the first place, provide context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Both need to be mentioned as first is the concert itself and the other the album--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If they both have to be mentioned then re-work the sentence so the concert itself starts the sentence. Then you can explain why there was a concert in the first place, which is what I asked nearly two weeks ago to be included. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Both need to be mentioned as first is the concert itself and the other the album--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- instead of repeating the name of the album when you link the concert, pipe it and mention why there was a concert in the first place, provide context. NapHit (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harrison's next album was the experimental Electronic Sound, which was the second and last album released by the short-lived recording label Zapple Records" no full stop at the end of this sentence
NapHit (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This has still not been addressed. NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole of the travelling wilbury's bit in the lead needs referencing as the albums are not part of his discography. Therefore those statements need a source
- * ref 2, book needs an isbn, year of publication, and author's full name
- Done
- Ref 7 is International Business Times not Time
- Ref 12 does not work
- Likewise ref 24
- Thanks for your comments, much appreciated. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done a few. Thanks for your comments.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very troubled by your attitude to this nomination, if you cannot be bothered addressing issues then just withdraw the nomination. We already have a lot of lists in the backlog and if its going to take you two weeks to respond to concerns then I don't think its fair on other nominators who do respond promptly to issues. You've made hardly any attempt to address important issues I've raised above, answering with often incorrect answers such as saying the six-times platinum sentence was referenced at the end of the paragraph when it is not. If you are not prepared to address issues reviewers raise, then why bother nominating in the first place? NapHit (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done a few. Thanks for your comments.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:35, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:33, 8 October 2012 [3].
- Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Requested by TheSpecialUser off-wiki, although I have contributed to the list. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Ref 1 is not reliable.
- Readers would like to know the INR value of US$107 million.
- "team won the series" >> "team won the league"
- "The last coach" >> "Their last coach"
- "Deccan Chargers played their" >> "Deccan Chargers played its" (be consistent, use either plural form or singular form)
- "who now plays for Kings XI Punjab (KXIP) as their captain" - no ref is provided for this
- "are the only batsmen" >> "were the only batsmen"
- "Cameron White, the former captain of the team" - get a ref for this
- "has the highest batting average" >> "had the highest batting average"
- "has the highest strike rate" >> "had the highest strike rate"
- "holds the record" >> "held the record"
- "highest number of runs in a single match" >> "highest score in an innings"
- "who has played the most number" >> "who had played the most number"
- "is also the team's leading" >> "was also the team's leading"
- "holds the record of having the highest strike rate of 12.0 as well as having" >> "held the record of having the highest strike rate of 12.0 as well as had"
- "have the best economy" >> "had the best economy"
- "is the only bowler" >> "was the only bowler"
- "having taken 22 catches" >> "had taken 22 catches"
- "have the most" >> "had the most"
- "has performed the" >> "had performed the"
- You could link "5-wicket haul" to List of Indian Premier League five-wicket hauls
- "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page... tag; see the help page." - Fix this.
- Not done, there are not errors. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it was fixed by someone else.
- The stumps column should come under the fielding section
- "Year of Twenty20 debut for Kings," "Year of latest Twenty20 match for Kings." Huh?
- Changed Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be West Indies and not Barbados.
- No, as it is a link to the national cricket team, not the generic West Indies one. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. Barbados is a first class team, and there is only West Indies in international cricket world, there is no T&T, Jamaica, Barbados, etc.
- Not sure how much it matters, as when I do lists I tend to go by nationality, kind of a hard one when WI is the "national" team but isn't a nationality. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but in this list nationality refers to under which nation does the player participates in the IPL (i.e, what is shown as his country in the auction). So, it should be WI not Barbados. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Styris is an Australian?
-
- Man he is a New Zealander! Check his article.
- Ummmm, he's New Zealand's seventh leading run-scorer! Note: Being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Symonds is an English?
- Yes, actually, from Birmingham. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is an Australian, we have nothing to do with his native land.
- Again, being born in a barn doesn't make one a horse. He has played for Australia, therefore is Australian, besides which, he moved to Australia with his adoptive parents at a very young age. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG! Shahid Afridi is an Indian!! :P
- Sanjay Bangar played his first match for DC in 2007?
- Chipli made a century?
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- As Vaibhav points out there are multiple issues with tense in this list. As the team is no longer playing it should be in past tense, ye in the opening sentence we have this: "Deccan Chargers (DC) is a former franchise cricket team which was based in Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, and was one of the teams participating in the Indian Premier League (IPL)." This does not fill me with confidence for the rest of the article. Thorough copyedit is needed. NapHit (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- I rarely comment on FL candidates, but on this rare occasion, sadly it's a fail. I think User:Vibhijain has pretty much summed up with his list what is wrong with the list. Is Shahid Afridi really Indian?!?!?! Ensure before nominating a list or article that it reaches the required standard for a nomination likely to succeed. On this occasion, on a cricketing note, it's out. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. TBrandley 01:56, 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [4].
- Nominator(s): Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive lead, lists all stations (including planned/future stations) uses color where appropriate and contains an appropriate graphic representing geography. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Wow; it's a wonderful list. That's all. Cheers, TBrandley 03:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Oppose per the below concerns of The Rambling Man, NapHit, and Arsenikk. TBrandley 17:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A lot of the opening dates need references.
- In progress Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a more specific opening date for Berwyn than "1916-17"? Or the two Green Line stations that opened in March 1894, for that matter?
- Working on it but still coming up with zip Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a symbol for terminal stations in addition to the shading per WP:COLOR.
- The list doesn't distinguish Metra transfers from 'L' transfers, which could be confusing to some people. Either those should be distinguished in the list or something should be added to the lead about the different types of transfers.
- It seems like almost every other train station FL has pictures of some of the stations, and I think pictures would help this list too.
In progressDone! Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard should be marked as a transfer station.
- I didn't list Howard as a transfer station (Belmont, Fullerton, etc.) because all of its lines are already in the "lines" category and anything in the transfer column would be a duplicate. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're still transfer stations, though; even if you don't put anything in the transfer column, they should be marked. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't list Howard as a transfer station (Belmont, Fullerton, etc.) because all of its lines are already in the "lines" category and anything in the transfer column would be a duplicate. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great list, and very close to FL quality; the referencing issue is the only major problem I can find. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The table should be accessible. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 09:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In progressDone! Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Oppose Not all of the Open dates have references, why?
- Nudge, is this going to be resolved? If not, my oppose stands and I recommend you withdraw the nomination until you can reference everything adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, I take the hint. I hereby permanently withdraw the nomination. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 23:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose based on the concerns raised by TRM and Arsenikk. NapHit (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Arsenikk (talk)
Glad to see station lists back at FLC—it has been quite some time now. Arsenikk (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Last part of the second paragraph lacks references. Arsenikk (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This section was originally longer but had to be cut down due to constraints on the length of the lead. References exist for an expanded and more detailed version, but I doubt there are any for the large scope of the paraphrased version. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some references, especially the finalization in 1926. From reading the old version I also see that 1926 is not mentioned, but that a new line in 1943 is, which seems to contradict the current statement. That is among the reasons why a reference would be much appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "finalization" mentioned was just that of the basic structure, which happened in 1900. The new line referred to in the next sentence is the Westchester bracnch. As stated in the paragraph, the system expanded outward until '26, that is, the line in 26 was the last line into new territory. You are correct in that there was an error. The Westchester branch had a line extension in 1930 that I had forgotten about. The "1926 line" was indeed in the older version, but it remained hidden as a note (and actually misidentified the line) because the existent list was getting to be long and repetitive. The 1943 line previously mentioned was the State Street Subway which traveled alongside/underneath preexisting 'L' lines, so its opening doesn't represent outward expansion.
- I can get references for individual openings, but I don't know of one (a reliable one, that is) that outright states that the mile-long extension of the Westchester branch would be the last extension into new territory until 1969.
- I'm not sure how to address this problem. Advice is appreciated. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there must be some references, especially the finalization in 1926. From reading the old version I also see that 1926 is not mentioned, but that a new line in 1943 is, which seems to contradict the current statement. That is among the reasons why a reference would be much appreciated. Arsenikk (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This section was originally longer but had to be cut down due to constraints on the length of the lead. References exist for an expanded and more detailed version, but I doubt there are any for the large scope of the paraphrased version. Lost on Belmont 3200N (talk) 04:41, 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [5].
- Nominator(s): Yerevanci (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think that the list is pretty much ready to be featured on the main page and is really interesting in its own way, because as I know this will be the first list of Olympic medalists of a certain ethnic group, not country. Yerevanci (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
And, there still is much more. For now, that's it though. TBrandley 15:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Interesting list but: the table needs a ref for each entry showing that he is considered of Armenian origin (i.e. a name ending in -ian is not enough for wikipedia to confirm his or her enthnicity) and another one to show that he actually won the medal listed. There also needs to be a reference showing that this is a complete list (i.e. not just wp:or). Nergaal (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the references be in a separate column, or just next to their names?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How you have it now is fine. I would put the footnotes into the ref column. However, most of the current references still don't point to the fact that the athletes are or Armenian descent. Also, make sure that the Russian titles are translated. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the bottom of the page. Under the references section there is a subsection "General". That book was used in making of the list and I don't think that separate sources are needed to prove the Armenianness of each individual athlete again. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be clearly discussed in the intro. Also, how reliable is the source? Also, it might be wise to move the second paragraph to a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I don't see anything wrong with that source. And what do you mean by saying it should be discussed in the intro?
- Where do you suggest to move the second paragraph? I do think it's wise to move it, but I can't think of a place. Or I can simply delete that paragraph, because it's about the Ancient Olympics, while the article is more about the Modern Olympics. I don't know. It looks interesting to me and it might be interesting to other readers as well. --Yerevanci (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That should be clearly discussed in the intro. Also, how reliable is the source? Also, it might be wise to move the second paragraph to a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the bottom of the page. Under the references section there is a subsection "General". That book was used in making of the list and I don't think that separate sources are needed to prove the Armenianness of each individual athlete again. --Yerevanci (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How you have it now is fine. I would put the footnotes into the ref column. However, most of the current references still don't point to the fact that the athletes are or Armenian descent. Also, make sure that the Russian titles are translated. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the references be in a separate column, or just next to their names?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pretty solid; it's good. TBrandley 04:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak opposeI expected to see only people who competed for Armenia, not who are of Armenian origin, else this is original research. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point of this article. It clearly states that "due to historical and political reasons, only the small portion of Armenian athletes have competed for Armenia". There is a source at the bottom under the title General references which was used for creating the list. How is that original research?
- If you expected to see the list of Olympic medalists for Armenia, then you go to Armenia at the Olympics and scroll down to List of Medalists. --Yerevanci (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest adding a hatnote for clarity. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this be appropriate: This article is about ethnic Armenian Olympic medalists. For the list of Olympic medalists for Armenia see Armenia at the Olympics#List of medalists?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is better. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding this post, I think the article gives too much weight to the ancient period instead of the recent times. For example, you could write when was the first Armenian committee establised. You state that many do not compete for Armenia "because of the economic crisis in 1990s", but what about in the 21st century? Perhaps mention the reason. I will re-review the list when I have the time. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add about the National Olympic Committee.
- Please read the rest of that sentecne. It says athletes from Armenia who migrated because of the economic crisis in 1990s. It includes athletes in 21st century that compete for other countries. For example Arsen Galstyan, who won a gold medal in judo at London Olympics few weeks ago, was born in Armenia in 1989 and his left Armenia in mid 1990s. The economic crisis included lack of electricity for about 2 years and gas for more than 5 years. The borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan are closed since then, because of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. Estimates say that about 0.6-1 million people left Armenia in 1990s. Another example is David Ayrapetyan, a bronze medalist of London Games in boxing. He was born in Baku, Azerbaijan. In 1990 after a pogrom about 200,000 Armenians left the city. His family migrated to Armenia, but soon left for Russia.--Yerevanci (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding this post, I think the article gives too much weight to the ancient period instead of the recent times. For example, you could write when was the first Armenian committee establised. You state that many do not compete for Armenia "because of the economic crisis in 1990s", but what about in the 21st century? Perhaps mention the reason. I will re-review the list when I have the time. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is better. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this be appropriate: This article is about ethnic Armenian Olympic medalists. For the list of Olympic medalists for Armenia see Armenia at the Olympics#List of medalists?--Yerevanci (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest adding a hatnote for clarity. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Oppose – Interesting idea for a list, but I see quite a few grammatical and formatting issues on top of the ones that have already been listed. The good news is that I think the list is fixable with some work. Most of what is below is simple to fix; the accessibility issues are more time-consuming than all of these, except for one source reliability concern.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*In the hatnote on top: "For athletes competed for Armenia". Surely "who" should go before "competed"?
|
- The two photographs could use alt text.
- added
- I don't see it when I'm reading the article. Could you check that all of the formatting is correct? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like alt text doesn't go with double images.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen cases where double images had alt text for each image, so I know it's possible. Why don't you look at some of the lists at WP:FL, find one that has a double image with alt text for each image, and see how it's formatted? That way you can fix this and know what to do for the future. I'd tell you which article to look at, but I can't think of one that has a double image off the top of my head. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like alt text doesn't go with double images.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 16:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it when I'm reading the article. Could you check that all of the formatting is correct? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- added
- Reference 4 could use a page number to help make the citation more verifiable.
- couldn't find the book online
- What makes databaseOlympics.com a reliable source? If you are choosing between that and Sports Reference, I believe the latter is more reliable.
- The only reason I used databaseOlympics.com is because that website is widely used on Wikipedia
- Just because something is used elsewhere doesn't make it reliable here. Those other articles may not have good reasons for using the source. Has data from the site been used in any major media publications, or have any publications recommended it as a good source of information about the Olympics? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest? I can't see any problem with the source.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that it be replaced with a more reliable source, because I don't believe it is reliable enough for an FL. I suggested Sports Reference as one good alternative; maybe there are others. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes Sports Reference a better, more reliable source? --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's passed stringent FAC source checks in the past, and it is operated by a parent group that runs other sports statistics web sites that have been declared reliable at FAC. To me, however, this is of secondary concern. Why should the site used in this article be considered a reliable source? We still don't have a good answer to that question, and without one I wouldn't consider it reliable. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK then. I have no problem with replacing databaseOlympics with SportsReference. All I want is a guarantee that after doing that I won't be asked to change it again. So, do you have any more complains about the article other than this? --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 15:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's passed stringent FAC source checks in the past, and it is operated by a parent group that runs other sports statistics web sites that have been declared reliable at FAC. To me, however, this is of secondary concern. Why should the site used in this article be considered a reliable source? We still don't have a good answer to that question, and without one I wouldn't consider it reliable. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes Sports Reference a better, more reliable source? --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 20:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that it be replaced with a more reliable source, because I don't believe it is reliable enough for an FL. I suggested Sports Reference as one good alternative; maybe there are others. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest? I can't see any problem with the source.--Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 01:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is used elsewhere doesn't make it reliable here. Those other articles may not have good reasons for using the source. Has data from the site been used in any major media publications, or have any publications recommended it as a good source of information about the Olympics? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only reason I used databaseOlympics.com is because that website is widely used on Wikipedia
- Comment I'm not comfortable with the inclusion of post '92 athletes that competed for countries other than Armenia. The justification for this list is surely that those listed identify as Armenian, or in the case of Soviet era athletes, would most likely have competed for Armenia had the country been independent. Pre '92 athletes that didn't compete for the Soviet Union should be considered on a case-by-case basis: in these instances I accept that someone might have identified as Armenian, but competed for a country other than the Soviet Union because they were unwilling or unable to represent the USSR. —WFC— 14:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at the "References" section. Under the title "general" there is a book that was used to prove the "Armenianness" of those atheletes.--Երևանցի ասելիք ունե՞ս 22:21, 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [6].
- Nominator(s): Aaron • You Da One 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I completely revamped the entire list and I think it's a really good example of definition of what a list of number ones on a chart should look like. It took a long time to re-format the table, format the references and go though each of the Billboard URLs correctly and do the lead, so hopefully it will be recognised as an FL! I really hope so. Aaron • You Da One 16:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The lead should be rewriten, FL can no longer start with "this is a list of". Use other number-one hits as an example on what to do in this case. Good example : List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.). Another thing is that I would move the dagger to after the song name rather than the month date. as it follow the color table aswell.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I have changed the opening sentence and moved the dagger to the song. Aaron • You Da One 12:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a formatting issue, the yellow is a little loud and too me a bit excessive. The color coding is one of the things I find annoying on the UK number one lists, even though I know many have passed FL. Maybe just the dagger or just highlight the cell for the song not the entire row? The only other thing, which I am quite unsure of on acceptability, is that the only source is the chart itself. At least, the Hot 100 charts reference an article which indicates coverage of actually being a number-one song beyond the chart itself (even though the source comes from the same publication). Just referencing the chart would indicate to me that you can just as well make similar lists on number twos and number threes, thus bordering on WP:IINFO. I'm a chart fanatic, but to be a featured list, I'd want to know what makes it important that these songs reached number one on this particular chart. Please just take these as my personal comments and not outright suggestions. Thanks and good luck. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The yellow/dagger are for people who may have difficulty determining things. I don't know how to make it so only the Song column is highlighted, it just automatically does the entire row. Yeah the Hot 100 gets extensive coverage, but this is the A/C chart, which doesn't get that kind of commentary, so we only have the archives (there's nothing wrong with that by the way, still says who is number one!). Number one songs are more important/recognised/acknowledged, so that's why this is important. At the end of the day, no one really cares about #2s or #3s do they lol. Aaron • You Da One 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that I could create an identical list in similar fashion using the same identical sources showing a list of number twos for this chart and it would meet the same criteria for FL that this one does. Being number one in airplay on adult contemporary radio stations just does not have the same meaning or impact that being number one on an all-encompassing chart covering both sales and airplay on all formats does; at least, if it does, it is not expressed here or in Adult Contemporary (chart). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but that would be irrelevant. People are only interested in number ones, and number ones are the most documented type of song. To be honest I don't really see the point in any of your points. I don't mean that rudely. Aaron • You Da One 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, number ones are the most documented type of charting songs, but for principal charts like the Hot 100 or the UK Singles Chart, where one can find other coverage. From this list, I don't see that number-one AC songs are documented any more than the #2s or #3s, etc, since the only references are to the top ten lists of each week's chart. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but the same can also be said for the Hot 100 archive, as you can only view the top ten each week. You can only view the top 100 for the current week. I still don't see what you point is to be honest. Only number one's are documented like this as people only care about number one's. That's why 99% of people know Mariah Carey has had 18 Hot 100 number one's, but 99% of people don't know she has had 3 number two's on the Hot 100. Aaron • You Da One 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is I can find plenty of coverage in independent sources about "Whistle" by Flo Rida becoming number one on the Hot 100, thus indirectly confirming that "people care about number one's" on that chart; yet I find nothing significant on "Drive By" by Train reaching number one on the AC chart. What verifiable interest is there about number-one songs on this chart? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The interest is who reached number one on this chart and any given point throughout 2011. (The fact that Adele is on the list with two songs creates a lot of interest, because of how much interest there is surrounding her). Aaron • You Da One 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is I can find plenty of coverage in independent sources about "Whistle" by Flo Rida becoming number one on the Hot 100, thus indirectly confirming that "people care about number one's" on that chart; yet I find nothing significant on "Drive By" by Train reaching number one on the AC chart. What verifiable interest is there about number-one songs on this chart? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but the same can also be said for the Hot 100 archive, as you can only view the top ten each week. You can only view the top 100 for the current week. I still don't see what you point is to be honest. Only number one's are documented like this as people only care about number one's. That's why 99% of people know Mariah Carey has had 18 Hot 100 number one's, but 99% of people don't know she has had 3 number two's on the Hot 100. Aaron • You Da One 17:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, number ones are the most documented type of charting songs, but for principal charts like the Hot 100 or the UK Singles Chart, where one can find other coverage. From this list, I don't see that number-one AC songs are documented any more than the #2s or #3s, etc, since the only references are to the top ten lists of each week's chart. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah but that would be irrelevant. People are only interested in number ones, and number ones are the most documented type of song. To be honest I don't really see the point in any of your points. I don't mean that rudely. Aaron • You Da One 10:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that I could create an identical list in similar fashion using the same identical sources showing a list of number twos for this chart and it would meet the same criteria for FL that this one does. Being number one in airplay on adult contemporary radio stations just does not have the same meaning or impact that being number one on an all-encompassing chart covering both sales and airplay on all formats does; at least, if it does, it is not expressed here or in Adult Contemporary (chart). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 3.b. This list has 8 entries. Nergaal (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So? What's your point? There is still a fully documented year for each number one's week. It's irrelevant that 8 artists topped the chart. The list is still the same length, regardless if 52 artists top the chart or 8. I'm sorry but that point isn't valid in my opinion. Aaron • You Da One 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List_of_2010s_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still don't see your point. Aaron • You Da One 10:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List_of_2010s_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So? What's your point? There is still a fully documented year for each number one's week. It's irrelevant that 8 artists topped the chart. The list is still the same length, regardless if 52 artists top the chart or 8. I'm sorry but that point isn't valid in my opinion. Aaron • You Da One 10:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The material in this article could "reasonably be included as part of a related article" (3b): List of 2000s US Adult Contemporary chart number ones. Goodraise 15:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why exactly a 2011 list would be included in a 2000 decade list. Besides the fact, that isn't reasonable. Zac 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except such a list doesn't exist and shouldn't exist. Would be far too long and difficult to navigate around as it would look messy. Your reason isn't good enough to oppose because you are asking to do something which doesn't exist. AARON• TALK 16:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid the precedent has been set that these kind of album lists should encapsulate a decade (see the list that Nergaal above has linked you to). Just because the list doesn't exist, it doesn't make it a poor reason to oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the precedent has been set, then why do none of the US R&B, Adult Contemporary or Dance number ones lists follow it? Just because it works for the UK number one singles, doesn't mean it does here. I personally think that a decade in one list looks very messy. AARON• TALK 16:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree. There's clearly inconsistency. But unless there's an agreement that by year articles should not exist, and decade ones should, there's really no leg to stand on. Just because some articles are some way, doesn't mean all have to be the same, without an agreement, of course. Zac 17:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "leg" we need is the FLCR. Goodraise 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- The Billboard Adult Contemporary chart is a chart that ranks the best-performing singles in that category in the United States. This feels a bit too repetitive to me, specifically chart is a chart.
- How about adding some dates or lengths in which a song was number one atop the chart? It seems a bit too short at its current state, and I think that would do the trick.
- It summarises who was number one in chronological order according to the table. I don't know about dates, and I have already listed some lengths (hence the sourcing in the lead...) AARON• TALK
- By lengths I mean, for example, "Rolling in the Deep" stayed atop the chart for 19 consecutive weeks, from July 2 to November 5. It gives the readers a better understanding of the timeline. Zac 17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It summarises who was number one in chronological order according to the table. I don't know about dates, and I have already listed some lengths (hence the sourcing in the lead...) AARON• TALK
- Year-End most popular soft rock/adult pop songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen BDS. would work much better as a footnote, instead of directly in the prose.
- How? It's better to state it where it is. It's more organised to keep it where it is. AARON• TALK
- Because it makes the table looked too stretched. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the size of the font is too small per guidelines. Zac 17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How? It's better to state it where it is. It's more organised to keep it where it is. AARON• TALK
- What about making the table sortable?
- What column?? AARON• TALK
- I would prefer to see the whole table sortable, but I know that's not entirely possible when you use rowspans. Zac 17:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What column?? AARON• TALK
Zac 16:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support— overall a well-organised and formatted list. However if possible, some more sourcing in the lead would be nice. Not a fan of decade lists as they're bulky and cumbersone to read. Till 15:05, 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [7].
- Nominator(s): Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of federal officials convicted of public corruption. If consensus is reached to promote this list, I hope to use the style to raise the similar lists for state, local, and territorial officials to a similar standard, with an eye toward a featured topic. Efforts to ensure comprehensiveness include: searches for reported judicial decisions on Westlaw and Lexis, a read of "Political Corruption in America: An Encyclopedia of Scandals, Power, and Greed" on Credo, a review of this and similar lists and categories, searches of news databases, and, of course, the research that went into the main article. I would be happy to address any comments or concerns. Savidan 21:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments quick ones.
At some comments to be considering.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
OpposeInteresting but the first sentence is lacking a verb; can't expect much after that. Nergaal (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. My apologies for the error. It was an artifact of changing the lead in response to Rambling Man's comments. Savidan 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but the intro does not discuss/summarize at all the contents of the table. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I have added the count of the total number convicted and the names of the two least-used statutes which were previously not mentioned in the intro. What else do you have in mind? Savidan 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First ones that come into mind: list states with at least 3 officials, earliest high-level official, some sort of summary of conviction totals per period, perhaphs in the second paragraph give totals for such crimes, perhaps talk a bit about the entries that are not HoR members. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the states with 3+. I was able to find sources for the first cabinet member, senator, and judge. I was not able to find a source for the first House member (although I am VERY sure of the right answer, it would be original research.) I also worry that totals per period would constitute original research depending on how the periods were drawn. I haven't seen to reliable source that adds up the totals per period. I don't understand what you mean by "talk a bit." Do you want me to explain the "story" of the 7 convicts that weren't House members? I feel like that goes way beyond the scope of the list. The point is to list all 40+ of them. Not to tell 40+ stories. Savidan 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list seems fine to me. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the states with 3+. I was able to find sources for the first cabinet member, senator, and judge. I was not able to find a source for the first House member (although I am VERY sure of the right answer, it would be original research.) I also worry that totals per period would constitute original research depending on how the periods were drawn. I haven't seen to reliable source that adds up the totals per period. I don't understand what you mean by "talk a bit." Do you want me to explain the "story" of the 7 convicts that weren't House members? I feel like that goes way beyond the scope of the list. The point is to list all 40+ of them. Not to tell 40+ stories. Savidan 05:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First ones that come into mind: list states with at least 3 officials, earliest high-level official, some sort of summary of conviction totals per period, perhaphs in the second paragraph give totals for such crimes, perhaps talk a bit about the entries that are not HoR members. Nergaal (talk) 01:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I must confess I don't understand what you mean. I have added the count of the total number convicted and the names of the two least-used statutes which were previously not mentioned in the intro. What else do you have in mind? Savidan 01:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but the intro does not discuss/summarize at all the contents of the table. Nergaal (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. My apologies for the error. It was an artifact of changing the lead in response to Rambling Man's comments. Savidan 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really like this table. Tables are very useful to organize large gobs of similar material in a way that the reader can interface with directly and they also make for a lot of "did you know" reading as other things besides the one sought are seen in context. I was surprised in this table by how few people were convicted of anything before 1930 and how many after. Structurally I like the arrangement where the table has photos second from left column which draws the eye down the page very rapidly. I think it's very helpful to be able to rearrange the data by name, year or state. The only thing I see that I would change is either the sentence "The year of conviction is included (if the official was convicted multiple times due to retrials, only the year of the first conviction is included)" or the inclusion of "Mario Biaggi" two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellin Beltz (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Biaggi was convicted in two separate cases arising from totally separate sets of conduct. The sentence quoted refers to situations where an appellate court reverses a conviction and the defendant is re-convicted at a retrial. Savidan 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as is, no comments. GregJackP Boomer! 02:19, 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 not promoted by NapHit 21:40, 1 October 2012 [8].
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it may meet the criteria. It follows the layout and reference style used in the lists of Oak Leaves recipents (1940 to 1945). Thanks for your review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you have to use accessible signs in cells with orange and yellow background for blind readers, see WP:NOSYMBOLS. Colour is unfortunately not enough. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments
- Table could do with rowscopes, see MOS:DTT for more info
- Is this mandatory? I tried scope="row" style=text-align:center and I am not very fond of the appearance it renders. But I will bend to popular demand. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its for the benefit of people using screen readers as they have trouble reading the list without it. Also as you have clearly defined row header it should be included. If you just use
!scope=row
and addplainrowheaders
towiikitable sortable
then the table will look the same apart from the cell being shaded. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its for the benefit of people using screen readers as they have trouble reading the list without it. Also as you have clearly defined row header it should be included. If you just use
- Personally I would move the image to after the name
- The layout follows the FLC lists of Oak Leaves (1940–1941), Oak Leaves (1942), Oak Leaves (1943), Oak Leaves (1944) and Oak Leaves (1945). I want to keep it uniform. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also change the key format to something like this. Readers with poor sight might struggle to see it in its current guise
- see above. I want to keep layout as is. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't think standardisation should stand in the way of benefiting people with poor sight who might struggle to see the symbol and read the writing. not everyone has perfect vision and can read small text. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does Kurt Anderson sort to the bottom when I press the sort icon for the name column, he shouldn't be coming after Axtmann
- Oops, that was an error. good catch MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume the Rank column sorts in order of military rank? Only asking because its not explicit and its not sorting alphabetically
- Correct, either from lowest to highest or highest to lowest. MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, what I was getting at is that it needs to be clear, so would add a note saying it sorts this way. Sorry, I should have made clear first time round. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead
- "This number is based on the analysis and acceptance of the order commission of the Association of Knight's Cross Recipients". What does "order commission" mean?
- I linked the term "order commission" to Blue-ribbon panel. The sentence "is an informal term generally used to describe a group of exceptional persons appointed to investigate or study a given question." best explains what they do. Does this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the text, it is not clear if the 43 foreign awards are intended to be included or excluded from this general list, but Ion Antonescu, who is on the List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, is not on this list. Without him, the list seems to be incomplete as it does not appear to specify that this is only for Third Reich recipients.
- Good point, I changed the wording slightly: Listed here are the 118 Knight's Cross recipients of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS whose last name starts with "A". Antonescu does not belong here. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bar Graph:
- The maximum for the number of presentations is set to 100. This should either match the total number of awards (118) or the largest data point (79).
- The maximum for the posthumous awards is set to 10. It should be either 11 or 5.
- List
- Some of the linked articles have images that are not included on the list.
- True, but the copy right status, at least to my knowledge, does not allow them to be used on lists. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
--DavidCane (talk) 12:23, 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.