Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions
Speedily close 1 |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list |
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list |
||
Please check that the list meets the FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
Please check that the list meets the FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cumbria/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grade I listed churches in Cumbria/archive1}} |
Revision as of 12:56, 7 January 2013
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions |
Featured list tools: | ||||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
Source reviews needed
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
- 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 11:52, 7 January 2013 [1].
- Nominator(s): Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am Re-nominating the article for FLC because it now meets Featured list criteria Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and speedy close: "For the award ceremony for the Bhaskar Bollywood Awards, which is yet to be held, Balan has received one nomination" and the extremely formulaic prose in the lead suggest that the grammar still needs extensive work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid. At a quick glance:
- Still mixed dates in refs.
- Done.
- Still grammar issues in the lead.
- Done
- Overlinking issues and grammar issues in the second image caption.
- Done.
- Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).
- If i am not wrong, Neither "row" nor "col scopes" are used in article.
- Still WP:DASH issues in some of the ref titles.
- Removed Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 12:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest a PR is used to iron out all the outstanding problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [2].
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental merengue house, R&B, reggaeton, rap or and hip hop music albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004. — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ21 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Nice list you two. Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Erick! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Great job! — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks DivaKnockouts! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks solid, table is nice too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much Crisco! We'll talk the suggestion of archiving URLs (I always tell myself I will... but I never end up doing it, LOL). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a solid work, but I think you could still add another image to ilustrate the winners. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I will add another image then :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – All caps in reference 6 need fixing.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 00:31, 30 January 2013 (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 pomoted by Hahc21 02:54, 14 February 2013 [3].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all the Grade I listed churches in the country of Cumbria. Its style and format follow the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Lancashire and the previous similar lists. The text has been copyedited. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Excellent list, the usual great work by Peter! NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another excellent list from Dr Vardy! I do have a few comments.- I think the lead might be improved with a little more detail on the churches. The second paragraph feels a little slight. Is there any more that can be added about the architecture of the non-Anglo-Saxon churches? Is there an unusually large amount of Norman architecture for the NW? St Martin's Brampton could perhaps be discussed as an unusually late grade I church. Also the Viking material could be discussed.
- Fair comment. I have expanded the second paragraph (not too much I hope), addressing these points, and added a little about the Viking material in the last paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the national park and the current industry of tourism affect the grade-I-listed churches? Are any of them significant tourist attractions? How many fall within the park?
- Only 10 out of about 50 churches are actually within the National Park, and most of these are located around the periphery. Considering the antiquity of almost all the churches, and the fact that tourism only started with the Romantic movement in the 18th century, I am not sure that this is particularly relevant to the architecture. So why do I include this in the lead: mainly to give a snapshot of what the county is like to the reader unfamiliar with it, and to give consistency with the other related FLs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I suppose international readers won't have any clue that the Lake District is in Cumbria, and are more likely to have heard of the former. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason the date column was removed? I've always found it very useful, even if the date for such churches can be hard to determine.
- Not only can the date be difficult to determine, I consider that a date column can be confusing. What date do you choose? The date of foundation, the date of earliest surviving material, the date of the major part of the fabric, the date of a major rebuilding or restoration? The relevant dates are included in the Notes column, with a discussion about their importance where necessary. IMO this is a better way to deal with dates than to have a potentially misleading extra column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd tend to prefer it using probably date of earliest surviving material, with a footnote perhaps -- I generally sort these types of list into date order before reading -- but I understand the reasoning for exclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- St Martin's, Bowness-on-Windermere: 'Painted on the internal walls are tests dating from the 16th century' -- what are tests, in this context? Should it be texts?
- St Mungo's, Bromfield: How does the chantry chapel of St George relate to the main church?
- St Ninian's, Brougham: What is the original date?
- St Oswald's, Grasmere: 'Battered' is obviously a technical term; can any article that explains it be linked? Otherwise it might be simpler just to write inward-sloping walls.
- St Mary's, Lanercost: What is the date of the original priory?
- St Andrew's Church, Sedbergh: This description is shorter than most of the others; can anything else be added?
- I have dealt with the above in the relevant Notes sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still doing some minor copy edits on the remainder of the table so I might have some more queries once I've finished.Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and advice. I think I have addressed all the points you raised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments very good indeed, a couple of minor things from me....
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support another excellent list from Peter, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything (including File: pages) looks good. Will probably support after I've found time to examine the prose a bit closer.Goodraise 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Image review. No concerns. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "all major architectural styles except Modernism can be found in the county's Grade I listed churches." - Would like to see a citation here.
- This is a summary drawn from the items in the list, which I think is valid in the lead. I have no source for this to provide a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say I agree. I see it as original research. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Research???? OK it's gone. A pity because I thought it added value and interest to the lead. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could word it differently, in a way that doesn't go beyond what the sources say? By simply removing it, you've broken the connection to the next sentence. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot think of a way of saying what I said without a similar objection being raised. Connection between the sentences altered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A large number of churches" - Could be less vague and would benefit from a citation.
- Changed to "Many of the churches", although I am not sure that this is an improvement. Once again I have no source for a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble figuring out the pattern behind your comma usage. Sometimes you appear to be using serial commas, sometimes not. Sometimes you appear to be placing commas after disambiguating locations, sometimes not. You're not placing the commas to accommodate the citations, are you?
"The most modern church in the list is St Martin, Brampton," - Suggest using listed instead.- That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"was built in 1874–78" - "was built from 1874 to 1878" - See MOS:YEAR. Multiple occurrences.- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that "between 1874 and 1878" is better and have made the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"designed by Philip Webb, who used a variety of architectural styles." - "... Webb, using a variety ..." would make it clear that Webb used multiple styles on this church.- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the lead as adequately summarizing the article, as long as it doesn't mention how many items it has.
- Total number of items added, with some amendment to the text. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The tower fell in 1600, destroying the choir and the north transept, which was followed by a fire in 1604." - Awkward. Please reword.- Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing this change in the article. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit didn't seem to stick for some reason, done it again. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing this change in the article. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman west doorway, and a Perpendicular east window." - Remove comma for consistency.- Comma removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The nave dates from the same century, the south aisle was added ..." - Comma splice.- Slightly rewritten, but bear in mind that once again this is a comma-separated list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perpendicular-style windows were inserted in the 16th century, the south porch was added ..." - Comma splice.
- No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion of next item. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The south aisle was added in about 1200, the chancel was extended ..." - Comma splice.
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand all this. I hope the nomination does not fail because of a comma or two! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not qute sure now what it is you're objecting to Goodraise. The text now reads:
- "St Michael's has a central tower dating from the 12th century; the nave dates from the same century. The south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century."
- That looks fine to me. Has there perhaps been some rewriting since your original posting? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I would have picked another sentence as an example had I refreshed the page before replying. The current version of this is fine, but the other two remain comma splices to the best of my understanding. I don't claim to be a guru of English grammar, but until someone explains to me how I'm mistaken here, assuming I actually am mistaken, I'll have to continue to object. In "I came. He left. And she stayed", I can replace the second period with a comma without problem, because there's a coordinating conjunction in the form of an and, but if I replace the first period with a comma, I'll have created a comma splice by connecting two independent clauses with a comma. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This is aA long narrow church built in the 12th and 13th centuries,"
- This makes it into a phrase rather than a sentence. I know that the notes in some lists are in phrases rather than in sentences, but I have tried to use sentences throughout. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but it still seems clumsy to me to start an item's description with "This is a". How about "This long narrow church was built in the 12th and 13th centuries, with later alterations"? Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see the need, but done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and a south doorway. A. above whichthe doorway is a carved stone from the early 12th century depictings two knights on horseback." - A suggestion.- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work either, as it's saying that the early 12th century is above the doorway. Changed to "An early 12th-century carved stone above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The northeast vestry was built in 1911 by W. L. Dolman, whoandconverted it into a chapelby the same architectin 1922." - Another suggestion.- Seems reasonable, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and was executed by George Jack to Webb's design" - Not sure what this means. Who designed the top stage, Jack or Webb?- "to" changed to "following". Does that clarify? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been away. Thanks for the comments, and to George Ponderevo for the help provided. I think that all the points raised have been addressed, and await any further comments. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The top stage of the tower, featuring a saddleback roof with a lead spirelet, was added in 1906 by George Jack, following Webb's design." - Another suggestion."It was suppressed at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, andwasrestored in 1925.""The church is now redundant andisin the care of the Churches Conservation Trust."
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly required, but I'd like to see the list comply with WP:NOPIPEDLINK (e.g.[[English Gothic architecture#Decorated Gothic]]
).
- Amended. Did not know this is "allowed" - thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the roofs
arein green slate." "The churchIt is constructed in roughcast stone with a slate roof." - Avoid repetition."Inside the church is a three-sided altar rail, and a three-decker pulpit." - Remove comma."south Norman doorway" - Awkward. Please reword."In the porch are part of a 10th-century cross-shaft decorated with carvings of beasts, and a grave-cover, possibly from the 11th century; outside the church is a 10th-century hogback stone." - Why use a semi-colon here instead of a period?"One of the monuments is by Francis Leggatt Chantrey." - What monuments?
- Above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having completed this review yet. Reviewing prose is a very time consuming activity for me. I'll try to get through the remaining items quickly. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This has been a Christian site since the 8th century..." - Considering that this is a list of churches and not a list of sites, I'm sure this can be said differently."The church was remodelled and extended in 1896–99 by C. J. Ferguson." - "between 1896 and 1899"?Not quite sure what a "blocked south Norman doorway" is. Could you put that differently?"consists of two naves,beingwhich were doubled in size between 1490 and 1500"
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sandys Chapel" - Might there be an apostrophe missing?
- No, the surname was Sandys. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"andithas a green slate roof.""four bay nave"/"four-bay nave" - Consistency please."Norman features include three doorways, and the north arcade." - Why's there a comma here?
- All the above dealt with, other than the Sandys chapel. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost through. Goodraise 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the building of which started in about 1175–80" - This again. Reading it aloud, I stumble over the date format."It was restored in 1847–49" - "between 1847 and 1849"?"Stained glass in the north aisle windows" - "The stained glass in the north aisle windows"?"The nave and chancel of Holy Trinity date from the late 12th century; there is a Norman north doorway." - Not seeing the connection here.- "it was restored and extended by Sarah Losh, including adding an extension to the north." - Double exten-, double -ing. Would like to see this worded differently.
- No improvement here. How about "In 1844 Sarah Losh restored the church and extended it to the north"? Or if you want to keep the new bit: "In 1844 Sarah Losh conducted a restoration and extension, which included the building of a chancel at right angles to the north of the nave." Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside the church are galleries on three sides carried on Tuscan columns, and paintings on the walls." - I'd put a comma before carried for easier understanding."a north doorway is said to be Norman." - Is there some sort of disagreement about it?"St Michael's ... contains Norman features, including a south doorway, the arcades, and the chancel arch. The font is also Norman." - Why make this two sentences?"In 1720 the body of the church"/"In 1689, the nave ceiling" - Consistent comma placement would be nice."in 1880–82 by John A. Cory, who also added the south porch." - Strong suggestion."was restored in 1880–82 by John A. Cory" - "between 1880 and 1882"?"Later alterations and additionshaveresulted in the presence of Early English and Perpendicular features.""The church has a cruciform plan, with a piscina in each transept." - Remove comma for consistency."Built in 1752–73, this church" - "between 1752 and 1773"?"In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford" - "Between 1655 and 1666"?
- All the above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford paid for the building of the northeast chapel and the rebuilding of the chancel." - "When she arrived in 1667 to see what she had paid for, she found nothing had actually been done and nobody knew where her money had gone." Can we reword this?
- I don't understand this. Where did that second quote come from?
- The second quote was my apparently failed attempt at humorously pointing out that the first quote doesn't say that these works were actually undertaken. Not a big deal, but why not make things as clear as possible? Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Reworded. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'm finally through. Goodraise 00:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete revisit.Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Revisited. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 04:44, 14 February 2013 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets Featured List Criteria. I used List of Test Cricket Records, which itself is a featured list, as a model to base this article off of. Blackhole77 talk | contrib 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs a rewrite before it gets near FL standard.
- "Sachin Tendulkar, widely considered the most famous cricketer of all time"
Can't we use some other adjective instead of 'famous'. It is like Abraham Lincoln is the most famous president of USA
- Please give a proper name to Reference 6, instead of just 'records'
- Fix ref 14
- The last four links seem irrelevant and can be removed, if CI links cover everything.
- Use the same naming convention for references. There are several different formats like :
- "^ ESPNCricinfo.com "Records - One-Day Internationals - Batting records - Most runs in career"
- "^ Cricinfo.com "Records - One-Day Internationals - Team records -"
- "^ "Records - One-Day Internationals - Batting records "
- "^ "One-Day Internationals - Bowling records - Most five-wickets-in"
All for similar links from Cricinfo
- "since then there have been over 3,000 Tests played by 25 teams. The frequency of Tests has steadily increased partly because of the increase in the number of Test-playing countries, and partly as cricket boards seek to maximise their revenue.[4]"
Tests ... ?
- " The duration of ODIs, currently limited to five days, has varied through Test history, ranging from three days to timeless matches."
Looks like a copy-paste gone wrong
- "Most consecutive wins"
I think this can do with some clarification in the footnotes. Does this include any abandoned matches ? If not, does the record change if abandoned matches are included.
- It depends on what you mean by abandoned. If you mean abandoned as in abadnoned without a ball bowled, the ODI doesn't count as part of any statistical records (its treated as if the fixture never existed). If however, you mean abandoned as in no result, then the no results do get factored in. A no result is treated the same was as a loss for this particular statistic. Consider South Africa's 12 game winning streak. The first game in this streak was a win over england in the 7th and final ODI of a seven game series. The 6th ODI was a no result.[5]. South Africa won the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th ODIs of this series. Without the no result, their streak would have also included these matches, increasing the streak up to 16. --Blackhole77 talk | contrib 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. Tintin 00:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fastest century
Boucher has retired, hasn't he ? So is Lara. Sehwag, Afridi and SRT are in bold in some places and not in some others. Better review the whole thing. Tintin 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment
- In wicket-keeping, it's given that Moin Khan and Dhoni played 96 and 81 matches. Both have played 200+ games. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment – Don't have time for a full review at the moment, but I noticed that many headings have improper overcapitalization; one example is "Team Wins, Losses, Ties, and No Results". Only the first word needs the capital letter, and I see several other instances where this is an issue in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
|
Again, any and all constructive criticism is welcome.
- Comment looking good. I concentrated on the Lead, which I've copyedited for you. The information about the Asia XI is UNDUEly detailed. Footnote it in brief. The losing percentages are cute, but are they really what you'd expect of headline records? I would probably expect reference to ties and/or streaks, in their place. In the individual records, I'd expect the Lead to mention highest score, fastest hundred, most economical bowling (10 overs) and best figures for a bowler. The second paragraph, which is very short, seems entirely redundant to me. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any update on this list? I see no activity since 28 January 2013. — ΛΧΣ21 23:48, 12 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 20:18, 12 February 2013 [6].
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A couple of minor copy edits made - please feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
Very minor points indeed and good work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All good: nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few minor comments
- I would remove the redirect (HMV -> [[HMV Group|HMV]])
- Okay. But why?
- The redirect might get turned into a dab page somewhere down the road. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough then. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand it, currently the list is compiled from 30 sources, but in the past this number has included 60? This might be made a little clear in the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a little confusing. From what I can tell, the poll has only ever been compiled each year using about 30-35 sources, but obviously over the years the sources have changed. As of last year, more than 60 different listings have, at some point, contributed towards the Poll of Polls. Which part of the lead do you think needs to be changed to make this clearer?
- Thank you very much for the review, Ruby! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason why this list should be barred from promotion. Prose is good and the content seems solid. Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images, looks like a good list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): AARON• TALK 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I have promoted five other lists similar to this to FL for other singer's and believe that I have taken comments raised in previous nominations of mine and have applied them to this article. I think it is a nice, simple yet informative, concise list. AARON• TALK 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "collaborations with others." Other what? Be specific, I take it you mean recording artists?
- I've been told to remove this from my 5 previous nominations of song lists for Rihanna, Adele etc. AARON• TALK
- As far as I'm concerned its currently too ambiguous, it could refer to anything. High quality prose should have no ambiguities, it needs to be explicit who the others are. NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "other singers", "other musicians", "other artists"... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- honestly, don't see why it can't be recording artists, that is what they are. The three options above could relate to more professions in the arts world, this way the reader is clear we are dealing people who record music. NapHit (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "other singers", "other musicians", "other artists"... — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned its currently too ambiguous, it could refer to anything. High quality prose should have no ambiguities, it needs to be explicit who the others are. NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told to remove this from my 5 previous nominations of song lists for Rihanna, Adele etc. AARON• TALK
- "Cole's first solo recording outside of the girl band that she is a member of, Girls Aloud..." This is not professional prose, needs revising
- "on 16 October 2009 and was written..." Comma after 2009, replace and with which
- you start off the third para saying a year later, but this is not correct. The last date you referred was the same year as the one in this sentence. I would remove the phrase altogether
- I'm a bit concerned that the prose just reads like list of who wrote what at the moment. There is not a lot of flow between sentences. I would suggest getting an experienced editor to give it a copyedit
- I'm just following how the the 5 FLs are written which have been promoted. AARON• TALK
- That may be so, but its not an excuse to pass up the issue just because its modelled after other lists. You need to improve the flow between sentences, as I state above it just reads like a list of facts currently. Needs a copyedit to polish it.NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a change to the bit about Call My Name by mentioning the genre, is that the sort thing you would like me to apply to make it flow? AARON• TALK 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By flow, I mean how one sentence runs into another. Although adding that info is helpful it doesn't address the issue. You need to ensure the sentences flow into each other and don't read like this: Person A wrote this song. Person B wrote this song, which is how it reads to me at the moment. NapHit (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to echo here. I have read the lead and although it is properly sourced, I am not completely comfortable at how it is written. I understand that this does not apply only to your list, but to all lists of this type. I'd prefer a lead focused on recurrent songwriters and genres, evolution of music styles through her studio albums, meaning and performance of most successful or widely known songs, and so on, but all meshed together to have an engaging prose. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By flow, I mean how one sentence runs into another. Although adding that info is helpful it doesn't address the issue. You need to ensure the sentences flow into each other and don't read like this: Person A wrote this song. Person B wrote this song, which is how it reads to me at the moment. NapHit (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a change to the bit about Call My Name by mentioning the genre, is that the sort thing you would like me to apply to make it flow? AARON• TALK 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but its not an excuse to pass up the issue just because its modelled after other lists. You need to improve the flow between sentences, as I state above it just reads like a list of facts currently. Needs a copyedit to polish it.NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just following how the the 5 FLs are written which have been promoted. AARON• TALK
- The table shouldn't change when it is initially sorted. 3 worlds needs to be moved to the top or forced to sort to to the bottom
- Contents box is missing the letter A, J and Y when there are songs that start with those letters
- hyphens in references should be en dashes
- Those edits have resulted in
&endash;
displaying instead of the actual dash. Use the small dash above the edit summary box instead. Also I still see hyphens in refs 6 and 7. NapHit (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those edits have resulted in
NapHit (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed all. AARON• TALK 12:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. The prose does not meet featured standards, an example being: "Cole is also member of Girls Aloud". The flow between sentences is almost non-existent an needs working on before it meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great work! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Once these issues and the above comments about the lead are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Nice work! Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I and Boys. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Per WP:SEEALSO, links that already appear in the article or any nav boxes needn't be also included in the See Also section. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs)
- I couldn't find anything about the B-sides, then ended up reading a massive interview about her album haha. OKay. — AARON • TALK 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but Cheryl Cole discography is listed in the navbox. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? — AARON • TALK
- Towards the top, underneath where it says "Cheryl Cole", to the left of where it says "Songs". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got no idea where you are talking about, as her discography is not linked anywhere. Besides, a See also section no longer exists. — AARON • TALK 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that it's essentially a moot point at the moment given that the SA section has gone, but, for future reference, I was referring to the link here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got no idea where you are talking about, as her discography is not linked anywhere. Besides, a See also section no longer exists. — AARON • TALK 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Towards the top, underneath where it says "Cheryl Cole", to the left of where it says "Songs". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? — AARON • TALK
- Nice, but Cheryl Cole discography is listed in the navbox. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find anything about the B-sides, then ended up reading a massive interview about her album haha. OKay. — AARON • TALK 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After I made some tiny fixes, I am confident to support this list of songs. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 10:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Very well formatted and cited. Good job. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 23:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — The list looks good (citations, formatting). Well done! — Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — AARON • TALK 12:15, 3 March 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [8].
- Nominator(s): — Rod talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. It is a long time since I've nominated anything here so if anything doesn't meet current standards let me know and I will do my best to fix them. Plans and pictures are only available for a few of the sites. There are a small number of redlinks - these are cases where there is enough evidence for them to be in the list but probably not enough material in reliable sources for a decent article. In terms of "comprehensiveness" this is difficult as archaeology experts are still arguing over some of the sites and there is always the chance of further sites before discovered, but I believe it covers all the sites for which strong current evidence exists.— Rod talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - nice work.
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- SuppOrT. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No problems found. You have a bunch of redirecting wikilinks, but they all seem intentional. Consider archiving your online sources with webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the sites ever go down or remove the data your referencing, your references don't die with them. --PresN 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Epic work. — ΛΧΣ21 20:15, 22 January 2013 (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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [9].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a long time since I "exposed myself" to the FLC community with a list of my own, so I thought it about time that I gave everyone a chance to get their own back on me with the same nit-picky comments I usually trot out in every review...! So, here it is. I remember watching Graham Gooch as a reasonably young person, and his various odd records (like the handling the ball thing, and his cool 333 against India), not to mention his obviously positive input to the current England cricket team made me inspired to get this list up and out there. Unlike Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook, Gooch played in a era when there weren't dozens and dozens of Tests every year, so his record is pretty impressive. Anyway, I ramble on. Here it is, for your delight and delectation. I fully expect a rough time from the community! Thanks, as ever, for all of your time and energy. (Incidentally, if anyone can find another nice, free image of Goochie, that would be lovely!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets the standards. Excellent work with the prose in particular. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Goodraise 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'm partial to longer sentences with less simple structure, but I find they make all those statistics easier to swallow. Three paragraphs of tiny sentences following, with only minor variations, the pattern of "Gooch did this. Gooch did that. Gooch did this. etc." make me want to fall asleep in front of my keyboard. Otherwise the list looks fine, and since none of these concerns are strictly actionable I'll go with weak support for now. Good work! Goodraise 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Well, there's a lot of things I would have done differently, but that's not what FLC is about. The list technically meets the criteria. I'm therefore in weak support. Goodraise 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very kind, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No kindness intended. I prefer to oppose nominations, here I just can't find anything over which I could reasonably do it. You should take that a compliment. The weak part of my position statement is essentially a result of my disagreement with my fellow reviewers and the current state of relevant guidelines, not that of a lack of willingness or ability to adjust the list to my liking on your part. And you did say you expected a rough time, didn't you? :) Goodraise 18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thrive on the rough times....! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No kindness intended. I prefer to oppose nominations, here I just can't find anything over which I could reasonably do it. You should take that a compliment. The weak part of my position statement is essentially a result of my disagreement with my fellow reviewers and the current state of relevant guidelines, not that of a lack of willingness or ability to adjust the list to my liking on your part. And you did say you expected a rough time, didn't you? :) Goodraise 18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Row scopes can often be difficult to decide upon, and there's sometimes no best answer. We have to remember that the only reason we include them is to make it easier for many screen readers to operate in what JAWS calls "table mode" where the reader can navigate in any direction through the table and hear the row and column headers before each item of data in a given cell. Goodraise is quite right in his understanding that when navigating down a column (for example), you might hear something like: "116", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "117", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide". So the question here is "Is that the best we can do to identify which century we are discussing?" It is quite possible that the score is the key identifier, although personally I'd prefer the date. How would "9 August 1990", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "25 January 1991", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide" sound to you? This is one of those cases where there probably isn't a right answer, but I can help a bit with the problem of duplicate dates. You could use || 26 July 1990 (1) ||
and || 26 July 1990 (2) ||
if you wanted to distinguish them - that would also have the advantage of properly sorting in both directions - see User:RexxS/Test cricket centuries for how that would look and function. I'm afraid that I don't think there's a definitive answer that can be universally applied; each case needs to be examined and a judgement made on what would sound best in a screen reader for that particular table. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, as always RexxS. Your sandbox example makes it clear how the (1) and (2) dates work, but your scope is still the score, not the date. Ideally, would you place the scope in the date column instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for your input, RexxS. I didn't notice there were already duplicate dates in the table. Anyway, I suppose I can live with any of these three columns being used for row scopes. Goodraise 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay Goodraise, well it's my intention to keep the scopes as they are, if you don't object too strongly. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address in the list. Thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if I were going to use the dates as row headers, I'd move them to the first column of the table, because there are still old versions of screen readers that ignore "scope" and simply use the first column as a row header without any regard to the markup! Sad, but true :( Anyway, the idea is that we try hard to make life easier for disadvantaged readers - but at some point we get diminishing returns. We don't want to expend massive effort seeking an elusive perfection for a single article when so many articles can be improved dramatically by the techniques that we adopt as a matter of course now. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay Goodraise, well it's my intention to keep the scopes as they are, if you don't object too strongly. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address in the list. Thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks for your input, RexxS. I didn't notice there were already duplicate dates in the table. Anyway, I suppose I can live with any of these three columns being used for row scopes. Goodraise 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
I've responded at my talk page about Cook's list, Regards, Zia Khan 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Meets the standards. Great job! Zia Khan 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- First paragraph has some very long lines. Can they be broken down a bit ?
- The link from No.20 leads to a 1993 match
- He was not the captain when he scored the No.20. Tintin 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Tintin, many thanks for your eagle-eyed comments, I hope I've fixed them to your satisfaction! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: really good and interesting list.
|
Support – I'm happy with the list and the changes made to it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
* "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only centurion, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, when he flicked the ball away from the stumps against Australia in 1993." – I'm not really keen on the ambiguity of this statement. I know that you mean he is the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball having already scored a century in that innings, but "a centurion" could also refer to anyone who has ever scored a century in Test cricket, which many of the other players to have been dismissed handled ball have been.
That aside, the list looks top-notch, as we would expect from you! Harrias talk 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support! Harrias talk 21:45, 15 January 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [10].
- Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Thank you for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice job. Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (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 08:57, 7 February 2013 [11].
- Nominator(s): PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because batting average has, at least historically, been regarded as the most important baseball statistic. Many of the greatest hitters in MLB history are included here. - PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The 0.330 part seems artificial. Why not 0.300 or 0.333??? Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in the lead, "Baseball historians have considered .330 to be an outstanding batting average." There are 207 players who have batted .300, so that is not a particularly rare accomplishment. - PM800 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you put that information in the intro so it becomes clear to the casual reader too? Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. - PM800 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments–
—Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Great work. A fine addition to the baseball-related FLs on WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment – Like Nergaal, I too mind myself questioning the inclusion criteria. About the only sources supporting it as a significant milestone are a 50-year-old Baseball Digest article, and a juvenile biography of A-Rod that says "A batting average higher than .330 is considered outstanding." I don't think the second source is a great one, and don't believe that the author should be considered a historian in that sense. While it would bloat the list considerably, .300 is a much more important number in baseball circles than .330 is. To me, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary, perhaps due to the desire to avoid a long list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm neither an expert nor am I particularly interested in MLB. This .330 thing is perplexing to me as well. Why not .32? Why not .34? If there are definitive independent third-party sources which declare that .330 is somehow a milestone, somehow more significant than .340, then please let me know. Right now it does seem somewhat arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone? Nomination appears to have stalled... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, when I see a .330 batting average, I immediately think elite in terms of hitting, not unlike seeing 3,500 hits. a .300 average, conversely, is very good, but there have been hitters with that average who weren't all that great. It's more arbitrary than .300, sure, but I've at least heard .330 bounced around once in a while, unlike .320 or .340. Unfortunately I don't have anything to cite as proof on that, I'm just going by my knowledge. Wizardman 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone? Nomination appears to have stalled... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 19:16, 28 January 2013 [12].
- Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the requirements that have been laid out by Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The prose is of Good Article quality (which is passed last summer), it features alt text, images, pristine references, and MOS-complying tables. While any critiques would inevitably make this better, I feel it is ready for the next step.Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because I find this to be an article with a list attached to it, so I would suggest taking this to featured article status rather. TBrandley (what's up) 21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seasons 1 through 4 of the show have been promoted to featured list. Besides, there is already a precedent for other series' season pages at the main Featured List page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TB in the sense of I personally feel it should be taken to FA rather than FL (it has quite a lot of prose), but however, there seems to be a precedent style for such types of articles. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, normally I'd agree, but I don't want to go against the convention. And considering season 1-4 are FLs, I feel that it would be a tad odd to suddenly have a FA (if it passes, that is).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although this looks more like an article than a typical list article, I highly doubt that anybody at FAC would vote for a FA with such a large table. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I put it up for a vote here.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although this looks more like an article than a typical list article, I highly doubt that anybody at FAC would vote for a FA with such a large table. Nergaal (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, normally I'd agree, but I don't want to go against the convention. And considering season 1-4 are FLs, I feel that it would be a tad odd to suddenly have a FA (if it passes, that is).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TB in the sense of I personally feel it should be taken to FA rather than FL (it has quite a lot of prose), but however, there seems to be a precedent style for such types of articles. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seasons 1 through 4 of the show have been promoted to featured list. Besides, there is already a precedent for other series' season pages at the main Featured List page.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is the first season without Steve Carell as Michael Scott in the lead role." → "This was the first season of the series without..."
- The lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, "The eighth season of the American television comedy The Office...", "The Office is an American adaptation..."
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cut down on the "this season... this season..." and reduced the references to the show. I also fixed the tense issue.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:20, 13 January 2013 (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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [13].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Branching out into cricket for a change. Firstly, I would like to thank AssociateAffiliate for the excellent work he did initially creating the list. I have merely polished his work and believe that it now meets the criteria. I will try and address all comments expediently. Cheers NapHit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Glad to see you nominating a cricket list, I also did a little bit to the list last month. Zia Khan 05:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Good work with the list. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Test century 21 lists the result as Draw, which goes against the Drawn that is used elsewhere.
- All of the links in note B are repeats from note A. I doubt that any of them are necessary.
- If possible, reference 5 could use a page number for the relevant content. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done the first two. Regarding the book, I don't have a copy, google books has no preview and the user that added the info is now retired. I'm busy today, but once I've got some free time, I'll look for an alternative source. NapHit (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've added a ref from ESPNcricinfo. NapHit (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you would prefer the paper source, the pages are 69–71. Harrias talk 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok I've added a ref from ESPNcricinfo. NapHit (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- done the first two. Regarding the book, I don't have a copy, google books has no preview and the user that added the info is now retired. I'm busy today, but once I've got some free time, I'll look for an alternative source. NapHit (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pietersen has scored centuries against all Test cricket playing nations, with the exception of Bangladesh." – He also hasn't scored a century against Zimbabwe, who although boycotted by England, are once again a Test playing nation.
- "and is the first batsman to score 5,000 or more runs in Test cricket in under five years." Just to clarify, the references state that he was the first to score his first 5,000 runs. As far as I can tell, someone may have scored 5,000 runs in under five years before, just not their first 5,000; as such, I think the language needs tightening to reflect this. (Unless I've misread the sources.)
Other than those nitpicks, it looks pretty good to me. Harrias talk 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Harrias, addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me! Harrias talk 21:30, 15 January 2013 (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 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. TBrandley (what's up) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very nice list, and it does have sufficient entries, but why does this need to be separate from (and somewhat redundant to) List of airports in British Columbia? A region column could be in the table to sort by the unofficial subdivisions of BC. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reywas makes a good point I think it's feasible this list could merged into the British Columbia one and a region column added. NapHit (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure. The amount of detail in the lead and the additional fields in this list make it perfectly justifiable to standalone. The main BC list is massive, I have counted the entries, but I suspect there are well over 200 entries, which if expanded as this list has been expanded, would be unmanageably large and would require some SALs to be branched out from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Rambling. The BC list is way to large. I think it would be best to separate each region into a separate list. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley (what's up) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley (what's up) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, "Okanagan" is sufficient, if people don't know what that is there's a short explanation and link in the lede. If the name is sufficient for the article, it's sufficient for subarticles. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley (what's up) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley (what's up) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rambling Man convinced me. This meets the FL criteria and can be a standalone list per the issues stated above. — ΛΧΣ21 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great list, no issues. Status 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a water aerodrome? I can't see anything on this list pointing to another article that tells me about it, and I frankly have no idea what to think. If we don't have a page that tells us anything, create a red link so that someone might think about creating such a page for people like me! It might be worth linking to airport and heliport too, just to be safe.
- Done, there is actually an article on it. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meanwhile, the towns of Oliver and Osoyoos are home to the Oliver Airport and Osoyoos Airport; the former is situated in Oliver, while the latter is based in Osoyoos." This sentence repeats itself, there is no need for the bit after the semi-colon.
- Removed. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is an "unincorporated community"?
- A place that has not been "incorporated" as a city, town, district, village, etc. I have added a link for now. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it appropriate to have an External links section for a Commons box and a Google maps/Bing maps box? (I genuinely don't know, but it looks odd to me.)
- It is the general convention to provide links to Wikimedia Commons in the section, same goes for those boxes, another editor suggested them. They are external links, so... TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias talk 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good work. Harrias talk 16:08, 22 February 2013 (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 08:05, 7 February 2013 [15].
- Nominator(s): – Nurmsook! talk... 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first in a series of similar NCAA ice hockey tournament champions lists that I am completing in the hopes of achieve FL standing. This list was previously listed as an FLC, but I withdrew it at that time due to ongoing discussions at WP:WIAFL. In the years since, those discussions have been settled, so I am listing this again (though the list has been much improved since). Cheers! – Nurmsook! talk... 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry to say that I'm currently leaning to an oppose on 3b. This list's content already exists (albeit in a slightly different format) in the relevant section in the main article. Indeed, the lead here could usefully be used to replace the very weak lead in the main article. Besides good referencing here, I'm not sure why this should standalone, but I say that purely as a reviewer and will leave it to others to offer comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Sorry, but in terms of 3b I don't think much has changed from the last FAC. The list could be, and part of it is, reasonably included in the main College Hockey America article, as it is a relatively small list that doesn't take up much room there. Also, I'd question whether the general reference, augenblick.org, is a reliable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Clearly covered in a much better format as a list with more information and better formatting than could be found trying to shoe horn it into an article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly a shoe-horn. Just a section that can exist in the main article easily. A tiny bit of the lead doesn't exist in the main CHA article, but the main table already does, just not with so much info. Everything else is a repeat. Plus, I'm not even sure that "CHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament" exists. I Googled it, it just led to Wikipedia and its mirrors. Perhaps this is an artificial branch from the main CHA article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it could probably be all merged into that article. I think it is just presented better on its own. As for the search I think its just due to the name scheme we use for disambiguating the types of hockey (we always say ice hockey on all articles) and in this case the gender of the tournament. If you do a search for "CHA tournament" you will see a lot more. We could however drop the "ice hockey" from the title since the CHA is an ice hockey only conference. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure we could argue over the name, but that's not really appropriate here other than to question that this actually exists as defined. The main point is that this list easily (as I demonstrated) fits into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sorry but I agree with Rambling Man and Giants2008. That table is way too short and may fit perfectly in the main article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 20:09, 22 January 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [16].
- Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on the discography extensively, I believe that it may be ready to be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments looks good!
NapHit (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great work, I don't see anything that requires fixing! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks all fine to me – I see no major issues stopping this deserving to be promoted to featured status. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per above. — ΛΧΣ21 20:08, 22 January 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [17].
- Nominator(s): PresN 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey all, back again. Switching off from video games back to SF fiction award lists, we have here the Theodore Sturgeon award- given for science fiction short stories published in English anywhere in the world in the prior year. Not as well known, perhaps as the Hugo or Nebula awards, but bears the distinction that unlike those awards, the Sturgeon (and its novel counterpart, the Campbell) is decided not by a vote among fans or American SF authors, but by a small panel of the kind of SF authors who have Wikipedia articles. The format is, of course, pretty much identical to all of the prior dozens of SF lists I've put through here, and hopefully I've remembered to include all of the comments and suggestions made in prior FLCs. Thank you all very much for reviewing! --PresN 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Excellent work as always by PresN! NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Image is still up for deletion, but would be valid for FU — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Otherwise, excellent as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ21 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment – It looks like the image mentioned above has been deleted. This has left a red link to the photo in the infobox; if the image is not brought back under fair use, this link should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 22 January 2013 (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 00:08, 2 February 2013 [18].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This one closely follows format of similar lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Good work with the list! Zia Khan 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets the standards. Zia Khan 17:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
Second "the" in "He holds the record for the consecutive appearances as a player in Tests."I see a couple of "till"s in the prose. Not sure whether this is considered formal enough in Australian/British English; if not, there's always "until".No need to capitalize "Tie" in the one note."There have been only two occasions where a Test match ending in a tie." "ending" → "ended".Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Tintin 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
For a cricket-aware reader it is misleading usage, because it came three months later in the same season.
This is also unconventional usage. Australia chased and won while the line gives the impression that he batted through the 50 overs
Redundant. See the previous line
He was the MoM
May not be a bad idea to add a note. The match did not have a MoM but Border was a 'player of the final' Tintin 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support No issues from me, looks good. Harrias talk 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (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 21:11, 10 February 2013 [19].
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and prose, I feel that it meets the FLC criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks solid. Image could be better, but if its all we've got it's all we've got. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully, I've addressed all of your comments satisfactorily. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"The critical success of the EP and extensive touring brought the group to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed the group in 2006." Don't care for the redundant use of "group" here; try revising this to have only one usage.
- Done Removed the second "group". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar issue in "The album reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200, and reached...". The second "reached" isn't needed at all in this sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed the second "reached". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ21 04:07, 7 February 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [20].
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a solid look at the literary works published in what was, for a time at least, the dominant newspaper in what is now Indonesia. This is a little more in line with my major, but different than my previous nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments another nice niche piece, I so much love getting this sort of thing through from time to time!
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I quite liked this list, and didn't see anything wrong with it. I too like seeing lists that aren't discographies or sports-related pop up. I'd prefer if "Unknown" authors didn't sort under "U", but I couldn't find a good way to do it. Thanks for archiving your online references! --PresN 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support! Unknown authors could be supported using {{sort|.|Unknown}}, but then we'd lose the grey background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sentence says, " Instead, writers hoping to be published had to focus on positive themes in an effort to instill positive traits in society; by the end of the occupation, this meant a nationalistic struggle.". However, Asia Raja was for Japanese propaganda. So, how can writers be forced to focus on something that by the end of occupation came on to mean nationalistic struggle? May be I am reading it wrongly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're reading it correctly, and it's written correctly. You'd have to read the end of Japanese occupation of Indonesia to get a good understanding of that. By mid-1945 the Japanese leadership recognised that they would not win the war and would be forced to withdraw from Indonesia (among others). Rather than give the archipelago (and its resources) back to the Dutch, they supported Indonesian nationalism. This ensured that the Dutch would either lose their control over the resources there, or waste many resources fighting a war with the Indonesians. As such, Indonesian nationalism was still, at least partially, in the Japanese interest. Check out Proclamation of Indonesian Independence to see the Japanese role in that event; it sure wasn't insignificant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, now I understand. Thanks for the explanation. I was completely unaware of this. However, I—as an uninitiated reader—did think wrongly. So, don't you think a description (nationalistic struggle against Dutch) or, at least, appropriate wikilink, is needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a link, later I'll take a look at the books I have at home for sourcing a footnote — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Undstood. I support this list to be a featured one. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a link, later I'll take a look at the books I have at home for sourcing a footnote — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, now I understand. Thanks for the explanation. I was completely unaware of this. However, I—as an uninitiated reader—did think wrongly. So, don't you think a description (nationalistic struggle against Dutch) or, at least, appropriate wikilink, is needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're reading it correctly, and it's written correctly. You'd have to read the end of Japanese occupation of Indonesia to get a good understanding of that. By mid-1945 the Japanese leadership recognised that they would not win the war and would be forced to withdraw from Indonesia (among others). Rather than give the archipelago (and its resources) back to the Dutch, they supported Indonesian nationalism. This ensured that the Dutch would either lose their control over the resources there, or waste many resources fighting a war with the Indonesians. As such, Indonesian nationalism was still, at least partially, in the Japanese interest. Check out Proclamation of Indonesian Independence to see the Japanese role in that event; it sure wasn't insignificant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Crisco always makes good lists. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hahc! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2013 (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 19:16, 28 January 2013 [21].
- Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following the first premature nomination, I now definitely feel that this discography meets the criteria. Regards. Tomcat (7) 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – an improvement, but there are still some issues.
Quantity confusion: I counted 35 singles, not 32.Needs citation: "Harrison's songwriting skills progressed considerably in the last Beatles years."
- The source at the end of the paragraph supports this sentence.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Needs citation: "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison was introduced to the sitar, which was used in such songs as 'Within You Without You' and 'The Inner Light'."
- The source at the end of the paragraph supports this sentence.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The source mentions Shankar and the sitar, but does not mention it was used on those two songs. NapHit (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded.--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redundancy: "Later healsotested with the slide guitar" – remove "also"; it serves no purpose.
- Removed--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diction: "His quiet and reserved appearance led Harrison to his nickname of the 'quiet Beatle'." – appearance as in physical appearance?
- Not sure what you mean, but reworded anyway--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward wording: "Harrison's wrote such successful and influential tracks as 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps', 'Here Comes the Sun' and 'Something'."
- Fixed typo--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The typo was fixed, but the sentence still reads awkwardly, mainly because oif the "such ... as" wording. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, now better?--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Number formatting: Per WP:MOSNUM, comparable quantities are written consistently as words/numerals. For example, this article has "number 49", written as a figure, but "number-one hit", which is written in words. Be consistent.
- Numbers higher than "9" are generally to be written out.--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but there are exceptions to that rule, and as you said, "generally". But I don't see this as a significant inconsistency in this article particularly, so I've struck my concern. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
POV: "His subsequent albums were moderately successful" – how do you define "moderately successful"? That's quite subjective wording.Accessibility: "'—' denotes albums that did not chart or were not released." – why is this in small print?
- Now in normal font size--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confusion: If the albums/singles were not released, why did they chart in some countries? In fact, if they weren't released, they shouldn't be here. Do you mean they weren't released in a particular region?
- Clarified--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "a particular region", I'd say "that region" as it sounds better and clearer. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: Be consistent on whether newspaper references have publisher locations or not.
- Removed--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Citations: In ref 9, International Business Times should plural, linked and italicized.
- Done--Tomcat (7) 17:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations: Why do some references have wikilinks but others do not?
- Citations: Check for consistency in italicization of web sites. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Citations: Allmusic or AllMusic? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Made consistent.--Tomcat (7) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments definitely in better shape than last time, still a few issues
- I also count 35 singles not the stated 32
- I did not count the two B-sides and the 2000 version of My Sweet Lord. Fixed.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "His quiet and reserved character led to Harrison to his nickname of the "quiet Beatle" -> "His quiet and reserved character resulted in his nickname' the "quiet Beatle"
- Reworded, but wrote a comma instead of the apostrophe.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- what makes While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Here comes the Sun and Something more influential and successful than his others? You not qualify this in the sentence as its just opinion without a qualifying fact
- Something, for example, was lauded by Sinatra, and all three appear in Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Singles of All Time. I will clarify that if needed.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ye I would clarify this, then it's clear why you chose those three as opposed to other songs. NapHit (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 12:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "His subsequent albums were moderately successful" How do you define moderately successful? Probably better to say there were not as successful as All Things Must
- Ok, clarified.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- having The Concert of Bangladesh in full twice in one sentence is not ideal, I would rewrite it slightly
- Reworded--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harrison had a run of six singles between 1981 and 1986 that did not chart" needs a reference
- Clarified--Tomcat (7) 19:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- not been clarified at all. This is sentence could be contested, it needs a reference proving the singles were unsuccessful. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables indicates they charted poorly. --Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the bit about the Travelling Wilbury's is relevant, this is about Harrison's career as a solo artist. Obviously his time in the Beatlesneeds to be mentioned, but I think mentioning this band is superfluous
- Removed--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 9 it's International Business Times
- Fixed--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 11 the hyphen should be an en dash
- I think I have fixed that.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You use ref 23 to reference The Concert for Bangladesh video album, yet I can't see it anywhere in that source
- Yes, done--Tomcat (7) 19:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff, but you need to add the author and publication date. NapHit (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff, but you need to add the author and publication date. NapHit (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- also those release dates need referencing and need to indicate what territory the release date refers to
- They don't need to be referenced since the footnotes below the country abbreviations include the dates.--Tomcat (7) 14:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the reader is unaware of this. I would reference this to a specific region and provide the actual date as well, this is now standard in discographies and I would expect the same here. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have some regions in small and others in normal font. Per other discography pages they should all be small. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean?--Tomcat (7) 20:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have some regions in small and others in normal font. Per other discography pages they should all be small. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But the reader is unaware of this. I would reference this to a specific region and provide the actual date as well, this is now standard in discographies and I would expect the same here. NapHit (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't start a sentence with "Around this time" without providing a date. You need to reword the start of that sentence, this was mentioned in the previous FLC and should have been fixed.
NapHit (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, removed.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Hi Tomcat7, I saw this was up for FL and noticed a few issues that I don't think are pointed out above:
- "After a meeting with Indian musician Ravi Shankar, Harrison was introduced to the sitar ..." Harrison first came across the sitar while filming the Beatles movie Help! in early '65 and then used the instrument on "Norwegian Wood" in October that year. He didn't meet Ravi Shankar till June or July 1966, after writing (and recording, probably) "Love You To".
- Reworded--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Later he tested with the slide guitar, which he used on the last three Beatles albums." I'm not sure what "tested" means here(!), but no matter what Bruce Eder of Allmusic says, Harrison did not play slide on the last three Beatles albums. It appears very briefly (and amateurishly) on "Strawberry Fields", perhaps not on the finished version but on one of the takes that was then compiled to form the master; the relevant take was included in full on Anthology 2. And there's an "undercurrent" of bottleneck on his 1969 B-side "Old Brown Shoe" – i.e., the way he moves his left hand on the fretboard makes the riff sound quite like he's playing slide guitar. But otherwise, it's acknowledged (in his autobiography, in many Harrison biographies) that he first played slide on the Delaney & Bonnie tour in December 1969, four months after recording was completed on Abbey Road.
- Removed--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "After the official announcement of the Beatles' break-up on 31 December 1970 in a McCartney press release,[7] all four members remained active, either as solo artists or as members of other bands." Firstly, and I guess these things are subjective, it seems a surprise to read a mention of the other Beatles in this sentence – my suggestion would be something like: "After the official announcement of the Beatles' break-up ... Harrison remained musically active, as a solo artist, a record producer of fellow Apple Records acts, and an in-demand session musician." The other thing about this sentence is the date of the break-up: 31 Dec was when McCartney effectively sued the other three to end the partnership legally, but normally the date given for their break-up is 9 or 10 April. Not only that, but the reference you give includes a source that's dated in April, not December. (This all seems a bit deja vu, but I can't see the message I thought I'd left for you about this, months ago ...)
- I simply removed the date, added what you suggested--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this is just a suggestion, but it seems to me that everything post-All Things Must Pass is dismissed very quickly. Harrison is acknowledged (by Beatles authors NIcholas Schaffner, Robert Rodriguez, Madinger & Easter and others, and GH biographer Simon Leng) as having been the most commercially successful and artistically consistent ex-Beatle until 1974. It was only when Wings' Band on the Run finally took off sales-wise in the US (April '74, thanks to the "Jet" single) that McCartney assumed that mantle, and his impressive run continued until the early '80s. Living in the Material World was seen as a big success (those authors I mentioned use much more colourful adjectives), and the way I understand it – the relevant reference is from a Bill Harry book, quoted in the LITMW article – the album sold 3 million, most of which was in America. (And this was a time, pre-1980s, when artists actually had to request that the RIAA carry out a sales audit, which some of the more competitive types – dare I say it, McCartney and Lennon – were more prone to do than perhaps Harrison was.) It's definitely a surprise not to see Cloud Nine mentioned – a big seller and, finally, full critical rehabilitation for Harrison after 1974–75 – and Brainwashed also, as his final, posthumous album release. And, given that the introductory text is supposed to serve as an overview of sorts (no?), I'd think mention should be made (instead of the current "receiving silver, gold and platinum certifications" etc) that all his albums in the '70s were certified gold by the RIAA. Also, out of a number of Harrison's enduring hit singles, only "My Sweet Lord", "What Is Life" and "All Those Years Ago" get a mention right now. My suggestion would be to name also "Bangla Desh" (rock's first charity single); "Give Me Love (US #1 and, with LITMW simultaneously topping the albums chart, the second time Harrison achieved the so-called Billboard double after My Sweet Lord/ATMP in Jan '71); "Dark Horse" and "Crackerbox Palace" perhaps; "Blow Away"; "Got My Mind Set on You", definitely (especially as you mention what didn't chart in the '80s).
- Doing--Tomcat (7) 13:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Bangla Desh, Give Me Love + LITMW, Got My Mind Set On You.--Tomcat (7) 19:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Cloud Nine and Brainwashed.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and comment perhaps about moving to his own, Warner-distributed Dark Horse Records in January 1976, following the closing down of Apple (in its initial form)?
I hope this helps, Tomcat7. Don't want to interfere – these are simply things that spring to mind from reading the introductory text. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't add that information since you did not state references. Many of the books about Harrison are not available online, so perhaps it is better if you be bold and make changes. If you want you can be the co-nominator. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added missing dates as requested. Happy to help out with the introductory text, Tomcat – but it's okay, you keep the nom. (I can't get too excited about working on lists of numbers!) Cheers, JG66 (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. Sorry, I haven't set the new references in ref template (I can't stand the way they look, personally, with unnecessary full stops and capital letters, but it's your call of course). Also, I wasn't sure how you were handling cases of author names being repeated, eg "Madinger, Chip & Easter, Mark, p. 330" or "Madinger & Easter, p. 330". JG66 (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding the dates. I will try to put the Allmusic biography aside and search for more reliable sources. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, I addressed all issues, and I intended to wait until George Harrison is promoted to FA status. What a shame...--Tomcat (7) 20:14, 28 January 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [22].
- Nominator(s): Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I worked on the list for more than 2 months and it also went through a PR. This is my first nomination at this topic, I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. Comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated, as always. Thanks, Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Link Pakistan the first time round.
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against WP:ACCESS, though it is difficult as you did not use colour codes. The symbols must be also accessible. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Personally, I'm not liking the mix of colours and symbols. I find them somewhat overused as a result of the high amount of parties involved. Anyways, per my principle of how lists always need a smile, I won't argue against it. Good job. — ΛΧΣ21 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you and happy new year. Zia Khan 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose – Prose in the lead isn't too bad, but the notes in the table need a lot of work, mainly to reduce overcapitalization. There are also some reference formatting issues that should have been caught earlier. The good news is that the issues shouldn't be hard to fix, for the most part.
Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose – on referencing style. I've not gone through the prose. But a look at the references reveal that there are a lot of formatting errors:
—Vensatry (Ping me) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided only shows the list of refs. they have used for content making. WP:RSN might be the best place to ask. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I'm not going to support or oppose the candidate since I don't have enough time to review the prose and table. As for the references, I'm fully satisfied with the work. —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Source review
|
- Support--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please consider uploaded new, cropped versions of the photographs so that they can be more visible. Also, that timeline in the end is ghastly and serves absolutely no purpose; it does not aid in visualising the tenures (if that were indeed the purpose). Please remove it.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have their free images. You can add if you have, timeline section removed. Thanks, Zia Khan 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the removal, but it appears another user has re-added the timeline.
- I didn't mean to add new images; just that take the existing ones, and upload one with a closer crop around the face. This way the prime ministers' faces can be easily visible without clicking on the images. For eg: while working on Minister of Home Affairs (India), I replaced this image of Chidambaram with a cropped version I made.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If other users re-add this than there shouldn't be a problem. Cropped some images, BTW. Zia Khan 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - alright, now that the above concerns have been dealt with, I'm fine in supporting this list. There were some minor issues with dates in a few references which I've taken care of myself. Consider archiving your online sources with web.archive.org or webcitation.org; while optional, it ensures that if the websites ever go down or remove the information you're citing, your references won't die with them. --PresN 20:10, 21 January 2013 (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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [23].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, John Le Mesurier was a tireless character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, but is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Arthur Wilson in the BBC television comedy Dad's Army. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main "Le Mez" page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments just a few quick ones, I hate to see nominations without any comments...
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support--Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Tomcat - your thoughts and support are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes thanks a lot for the great review. -- CassiantoTalk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Tomcat - your thoughts and support are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks solid! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great news to hear of your support. Your review has been much appreciated as always! -- CassiantoTalk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Seems to be on a par with the Sellers list, nice work. Just have a few comments:
Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support No other issues that I can see. Obviously some images would be nice, but if there are no suitable free images available then there's not much that you can really do. Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great: Many thanks indeed! I's also love to see some images there, but the relevant ones aren't free and the free ones aren't relevant, sadly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't like how the paragraphs are organized, but that's me being nitpicky. And by the way, why a picture of John Le Mesurier (Like this one) is not used? it can be of great value to have a picture of him there. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That picture is being used under fair use and it wouldn't apply to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Fair enough. — ΛΧΣ21 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That picture is being used under fair use and it wouldn't apply to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your support. I'd love to have that pic on the page - and a few others dotted throughout, but without supporting text to discuss etc, it doesn't get over the threshold of fair use. Unfortunately Le Mez is in that time period where his works are all still well within copyright, but before people took decent pics on cameras or phones at premieres, or in the street etc. I've left a begging note with Allan warren to see if he has anything, but unless something crops up later it'll be an image-free zone unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2013 (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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [24].
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and creates a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is reserved for video albums consisting of more than one song or track and is awarded to artists and/or video directors or producers of at least 51% of the total playing time. ΛΧΣ21 and Statυs (talk), 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I went through the list 2 times and I couldn't find any additional issues that should be addressed. Good job guys! — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – great list, a few comments...
|
- Support – a bit on the short side, but a solid job. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – ref 5 needs to include the parameter
|format=PDF
NapHit (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Done. — ΛΧΣ21 18:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With only 7 entries, I am not sure how it meets criterion 3, as it can be easily merged into an article discussing the short and long form music videos. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "criterion 3" GA? Assuming you were talking about the comprehensiveness criteria, of course it meets such. — ΛΧΣ21 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, why are you linking to GA criteria on a FLC? Additionally, those are two different given awards, so no, they will not, and can not be merged. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "criterion 3" GA? Assuming you were talking about the comprehensiveness criteria, of course it meets such. — ΛΧΣ21 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jaespinoza (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*A quick comment, at the 2006 LGA's a tie was declared and the award was shared by Cafe Tacvba and Bebo & Cigala, even your references for that year show that joint win, you should reword the lead and adjust the table. Otherwise, a good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Older nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:34, 16 January 2013 [25].
- Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is fully illustrated with many details. I have worked on it extensively, and the National Forests cover a huge portion of the United States. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Hahc21 |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ21 06:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support...pretty familiar with a couple dozen of these forests. I'm not seeing any issues that jump out in any way. Covers all the forests, has references for each, plus images. Nice job.....MONGO 06:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments really quick ones, will need to revisit this mammoth list...!
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Support' – you're not going to like me for suggesting this, but the images in the tables could do with having alt text. NapHit (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually meant to add this but forgot about it. I'll do it soon. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice job on this! Two comments: 1) In the last sentence of note C, shouldn't there be an "or" before the last of the three options for the date meaning? 2) Consider archiving your citations- it's optional, and a pain with that many, but it ensures that the reference will not be lost if websites go down or change. --PresN 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic work on this! It looks like you modeled this on my National Parks list, and you've done a terrific job. I liked File:USA National Forest Lands.svg, which used to be in the article. I think it could be worthwhile to mention the top states with the most area/greatest percentage of area that are national forests. Also, you mentioned six of the national monuments that are part of NFs, but Admiralty Island and Misty Fjords could be added to Tongass. Reywas92Talk 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I borrowed your list format, and I may use it for other similar lists. So thanks a lot for it! I liked that image as well, but didn't think more than one map worked well in the article. I do plan on revising the article United States National Forest, and I will definitely include the map there. I'll add some mention of the states with most/greatest percentage of NF lands as well as the monuments here. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – All of the book references (I counted three) need page numbers to assist in helping readers verify the content. I don't believe that just providing a link is enough if the reader has to go through a large number of pages, with no idea where the information can be found.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add page numbers, but it is actually quite easy to find the information in the books because they have a short section on each forest, as in an encyclopedia. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One small question. Why is "U.S." being used as an adjective in the title? Shouldn't the adjective be "National Forests", e.g. List of National Forests in the United States? Or is "U.S. National Forest" the formal designation of these forests like "U.S. Navy"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the title is like this, and it was like this long before I did any work on the article. I don't think "U.S. National Forest" is a formal designation, so "National Forests" should be the adjective. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I only wondered about the formal designation because obviously a list about admirals in the US Navy, for example, would almost certainly have to be titled "List of U.S. Navy admirals", which kind of tortures "U.S. Navy" (a proper noun) into an adjective. Since "U.S. National Forest" isn't a title, perhaps the article would be better titled "List of National Forests in the United States" or "List of national forests in the United States" (since I'm not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun. I'm leaning towards no, but there's really no comparable protected area designation similar to it in other countries. If the title is changed, the two other NF related lists should be changed as well. I'm hoping someone else can provide some input into this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its been a long time (years) and I cannot find it but lists of this type went through some sort of naming discussions at some point and this naming style was at that time deemed the best way to solve the problems. It should be noted however that List of national parks of the United States, is a featured list and has a naming convention similar to what HJMitchell suggests. We also have List of National Wildlife Refuges of the United States which isn't an FL. I think the discussion about naming styles also led to such lists as List of U.S. Wilderness Areas, List of U.S. state fossils...etc. So this may all be a matter of personal preference rather than any current or even recent discussion regarding standardizing the naming comventions of such lists.--MONGO 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also...the article List of national parks of the United States was moved to that name in 2012 here though it passed FLC as List of National Parks of the United States in 2010.--MONGO 01:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To complicate things, "List of National Monuments of the United States," a featured list, was moved from "List of national monuments of the United States" in 2009. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "of the United States" seems a strange way to title these articles to me (perhaps it's because I'm a Brit). I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that "U.S." is not an adjective and "national forest" (or "National Forest") should be the adjective in the title. Since "national forest" isn't really a proper noun, my preference is for the latter of the titles I suggested above. I think we would all think "List of France National Forests", "List of Australia National Forests", or "List of Canada National Forests" were rather strange titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I checked a couple books and other references, and in them national forest is not a proper noun. The U.S. Forest Service website and some of their publications agree with this (at least for the most part). Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest page is moved to List of national forests of the United States and then promotion follows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm not beholden to the precise naming of the article, there is an interesting discussion at the FLC for List of national parks of the United States which at the time of the FLC in May 2010 was List of National Parks of the United States and was moved in 2012 to its current title. Under the comments section, a similar discussion ensued...here...and noting there that they mentioned another FL titled List of National Parks of Canada. I'm leaning towards keeping National Forests in caps since this is a formal designation of the areas in this list. But I'm not going to argue about what title is best suited here, only pointing out that there seems to be much disagreement as to how to best name these types of lists and what is a proper noun and what isn't (especially when we're discussing formally designated areas)...thats all.--MONGO 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest page is moved to List of national forests of the United States and then promotion follows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I checked a couple books and other references, and in them national forest is not a proper noun. The U.S. Forest Service website and some of their publications agree with this (at least for the most part). Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "of the United States" seems a strange way to title these articles to me (perhaps it's because I'm a Brit). I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that "U.S." is not an adjective and "national forest" (or "National Forest") should be the adjective in the title. Since "national forest" isn't really a proper noun, my preference is for the latter of the titles I suggested above. I think we would all think "List of France National Forests", "List of Australia National Forests", or "List of Canada National Forests" were rather strange titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To complicate things, "List of National Monuments of the United States," a featured list, was moved from "List of national monuments of the United States" in 2009. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun. I'm leaning towards no, but there's really no comparable protected area designation similar to it in other countries. If the title is changed, the two other NF related lists should be changed as well. I'm hoping someone else can provide some input into this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I only wondered about the formal designation because obviously a list about admirals in the US Navy, for example, would almost certainly have to be titled "List of U.S. Navy admirals", which kind of tortures "U.S. Navy" (a proper noun) into an adjective. Since "U.S. National Forest" isn't a title, perhaps the article would be better titled "List of National Forests in the United States" or "List of national forests in the United States" (since I'm not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why the title is like this, and it was like this long before I did any work on the article. I don't think "U.S. National Forest" is a formal designation, so "National Forests" should be the adjective. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:34, 16 January 2013 [26].
- Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets the feature list criteria. I have worked on it for certain period of time. Justin Timberlake is well known singer and actor who deserves his own videography page as he has enough of music videos and films. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see who is the director and from which album the video/song comes as well as 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. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have read and have no comments by now. Good candidate. I may leave some nit-picky comments later, but I'm ready to support. Good work. — ΛΧΣ21 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose some opening thoughts:
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
A few comments from Status:
|
- Support. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- You have forgotten the two daggers in the Films section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see nothing wrong here, so I am confident supporting this FLC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – you're really good with videog/filmog/discogs now, Tomica. I have a few suggestions that perhaps you should consider:
WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – I've looked it over, and I'm happy to support. Well done. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, nice work Tom. – Et3rnal 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- SupportThis list meets the FL criteria and is well-written. Good work Tom. —PKS:1142 · (TALK) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Why have you not included the 'N Sync videos? I fail to see why these are not a part of his videography just because four other guys were in the group too. He was in those videos, so to exclude them makes the list incomplete.
- They shouldn't be here, because this videography is for work for which he got credit solely as Justin Timberlake, not an NSYNC boy or whatever. Their respective videos could be find in their respective discography. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is related to one of the points made below by me: how are his performances with Madonna any more relevant than those for 'N Sync? At least a small section with his activity back then should be included here. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay guys, do you rеаlize what I am talking about here? This isn't about if its notable or not, but if it did happen or not. In the music videos of 'Nsync he was not credited as Justin Timberlake, which is different for ex. "4 Minutes" (a song by Madonna which features vocals by Justin Timberlake). This list is about music videos and films he did on his own, not as part of some group or whatever. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is related to one of the points made below by me: how are his performances with Madonna any more relevant than those for 'N Sync? At least a small section with his activity back then should be included here. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, music videos don't belong to an album. They're promos for the single, so perhaps it's not necessary to include the album column.
- Of course that the column is for the song, I don't see reason for removing it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unreleased material cannot be part of the videography, especially Runner, Runner, where there's not even information on the character he plays. By the time those two movies are released his scenes could have been cut.
- What? So what if the material is not released yet, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be released? If something changes I will change it here too. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having "unknown" for the role and episode of Touched by an Angel in unacceptable.
- How come? I searched the whole web and couldn't find another information for it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chuck Lorre is the creator of SNL, but perhaps that column could be expanded to include writers and directors, so you could list the writers and directors of the Touched by an Angel episode and SNL shows or sketches.
- I found who is the director for every episode of SNL (altough I can't for Touched by an Angel, as I said above), but I am not sure how the column should be now named, because we have creator, producer and director. If you could give a proposal it will be fine. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I've read this, it is very organized and clear. It works well having everything in one article :) Glad to support. Arre 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments I think the music videos section requires an extra column saying who is the main artist of the album; none should probably use some sort of gray background; I would also strongly suggest to have column for awards that he won for the video performances (similar to how album lists have certifications). Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, I found that columns completely unnecessary. First, if people want to know who is the main artist of the album they will go to its wiki page. And about the awards column, this is Justin Timberlake videography, not List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that there's no room for that, right? Box office gross and its budget is fine enough for film information, that is often not even included in filmography tables. And as Tomica said, there's an article for that. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, I found that columns completely unnecessary. First, if people want to know who is the main artist of the album they will go to its wiki page. And about the awards column, this is Justin Timberlake videography, not List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comment from Aaron |
---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
|
- Support AARON• TALK 18:26, 6 January 2013 (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 02:06, 8 January 2013 [27].
- Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 15:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Dynamics was best known for developing the Legacy of Kain and Gex series, but in 2003 the studio became known for the development of the best-selling Tomb Raider franchise after its original developer, Core Design, failed to gain critical or commercial success with their later Tomb Raider games. In 2006, Tomb Raider: Legend was released; it became the fastest selling game in the series and eventually sold 4.5 million units worldwide. Crystal Dynamics then co-developed Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first Tomb Raider game, with developer Buzz Monkey Software, and released it in June 2007. The next installment, Tomb Raider Underworld, was released on November 2008 on next-generation consoles. — ΛΧΣ21 15:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose because you hardly used other sites except Allgame, which is not very reliable especially regarding dates. You did not wrote the full dates, you avoided listing all platform dates and the table is odd. For example, this site state November 16, 2004, (it is Crash 'n Burn by the way) but you just inserted the year. Suggest you use the format in List of Looking Glass Studios video games, which is far more attractive, comprehensive and neat. But I oppose largely because it appears that you have not researched very well. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: The histmerge template makes me concerned about stability. Until that's taken care of, I can't really offer any other comments. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Looks solid. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Status:
Statυs (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Good work! Statυs (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The list looks good, and according to my point I can't find any particular issues in it. Good job! — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please re-read my comments above, and then ask yourself what you forgot to change. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I read, nothing. If you are talking about the table, it will stay as it is :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not the table. There is another thing that was not changed.--Tomcat (7) 19:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me; I'm blind and couldn't see it yet. Your comments were (and my responses):
- "Didn't write all dates": They are not available. usually, games released before 1996/97 are difficult to track their specific release date.
- "You avoided listing all platform dates": this is only needed when platform dates vary.
- "For example, this site state November 16, 2004, (it is Crash 'n Burn by the way) but you just inserted the year": That game wasn't developed by Crystal Dynamics. It is a remake by other studio that was released 11 years after the original and thus doesn't belong to this list.
- I see no other comments. If I missed something, please let me know. I'm blind sometimes, and I apologize for that. — ΛΧΣ21 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Crash n' Burn should be Crash 'n Burn :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OH. That is. Yep, I'm blind sometimes. I'll fix it now. Thanks Tomcat. — ΛΧΣ21 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Crash n' Burn should be Crash 'n Burn :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me; I'm blind and couldn't see it yet. Your comments were (and my responses):
- No, not the table. There is another thing that was not changed.--Tomcat (7) 19:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I read, nothing. If you are talking about the table, it will stay as it is :) — ΛΧΣ21 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
"Crystal Dynamics gained the rights of the fanchise in 1998...". "fanchise" → "franchise". Also, I'm thinking that "of" should be "to" for the sake of the sentence as a whole.In the photo caption, the comma should be removed.Note 14: "windows" needs capitalization.In ref 2, the pp. should instead be p., as this is a single-page cite. If you're using the citation templates, changing the pages= parameter to page= will fix this.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed all. Thanks Giants. — ΛΧΣ21 01:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- Makes me sad that you just use a bare wikitable instead of the other VG game list templates. This way focuses most of the attention on the platforms, while still jamming together multiple platforms by the same company, losing region-specificity, and yet not gaining sorting functionality. Oh well.
- I don't use a bare wikitable... I use {{ListEntry/VG}}... :)
- "showcases the correspondent title"? Did you mean "corresponding"?
- Done.
- You link the first 3 genres, but not "shooter". Or "action", or "adventure".
- Done.
- And you link Sega Saturn the fourth time you use it in the table.
- Done.
- You should link Feral Interactive and Square Enix in the table (each only used once).
- Done.
- Are all these release dates for the NA region? Or just the first place the game was released (likely the same thing)?
- First region it was released for each platform.
- Were none of them released in other regions if this is just NA?
- Indeed, but I specified only the first date, regardless of the region.
- Can you really not find more specific released dates for any of the '90s games? (or the 2006 mobile Pandemonium release)? 'Cause a quick peek at Gamespot is giving me full year-month-day for all the Gex games, at least- the 90s weren't that long ago. I know you like Allgame, but... that lack of specificity is exactly why I don't use it in my lists. (well, that and it's biased away from Japanese games and my lists are heavy on those.)
- I was recommended not to use GameSpot as a source for dates while on my Sinistar: Unleashed FAC. So, what should I do? Can I use IGN? I don't know if GameInformer holds a pre-2000 game database. I will check again.
- Remove the (s) from "Publisher(s)" for rows that have only one publisher, and make it "Publishers" if there's multiple. They're not column headers like "Platform(s)", there's no need to be generic.
- Fixed the code of {{ListEntry/VG}}.
- Find a way to make Game Boy Color fit on one line (GBC?) or find a way to denote when there's two platforms in a box besides the line break- right now it looks like some games were released for the "Game Boy" as well as the "Color" (or alternately, that some were released for the "Windows Xbox 360").
- I made each console to fit a single line. I guess this fixes the issue.
- Did I mention that I really don't like this table format? Though I do like the regimented release details style, you're dropping details and squashing others.
- You have "Crash N Burn" in the table and "Crash 'n Burn" in the lead (as a redirect, as well.) "Tomb Raider" in the lead is also a redirect, as is California.
- Done
- Other redirects that don't look intentional- Mac OS X, Sega Dreamcast, GameCube, Whiplash, Microsoft Corporation, Crash N Burn in the table.
- Done.
- I wish the "notes" were integrated into the table, but that's more of a personal preference thing, I think.
- I don't find a way to make them look good inside the table...
- Consider archiving your refs- video game sites can be ephemeral, and all the data your citing here is more than usual subject to change without notice. --PresN 05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh painful process that is. I will do it slowly, first on the non-Allgame refs, then the rest.
- --PresN 05:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I think I have adressed all. Sorry for the late response, I was handling the issues of my FAC :) — ΛΧΣ21 20:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, that was quite quick, and overnight for me. I didn't realize that you had made your own template- guess we're up to 3 different VG template styles in addition to a few variants on straight wikitables used in FLs/FLCs. Oh well, every company is different-it's not a format I'll likely use, but I'm not going to oppose over different aesthetics if it gets the job done. I'm going to let it go about the different regions- if you don't feel it's as important for Crystal Dynamics (as an American company) as it is for Square Enix (as a Japanese company) to list out the different releases for each region, that's your call. Changed to Support, good job. --PresN 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, As an american company, I considered that adding all the regions isn't important. Thank you for your comments PresN :) — ΛΧΣ21 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, that was quite quick, and overnight for me. I didn't realize that you had made your own template- guess we're up to 3 different VG template styles in addition to a few variants on straight wikitables used in FLs/FLCs. Oh well, every company is different-it's not a format I'll likely use, but I'm not going to oppose over different aesthetics if it gets the job done. I'm going to let it go about the different regions- if you don't feel it's as important for Crystal Dynamics (as an American company) as it is for Square Enix (as a Japanese company) to list out the different releases for each region, that's your call. Changed to Support, good job. --PresN 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I think I have adressed all. Sorry for the late response, I was handling the issues of my FAC :) — ΛΧΣ21 20:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can somebody explain me what is the advantage of bunching the release data into one cell instead of having three columns which are sortable? Nergaal (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need to give so much space and highlight to release dates? The games are already ordered by release date from earliest to latest, and release dates of each game are ordered per alphabetical console names. I don't find it useful to make a column for each release date per region. It is not attractive and looks indiscriminate. — ΛΧΣ21 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, you find it attractive or indiscriminate, but the readers will be happy to find the information they are searching for. Your Template:ListEntry/VG, created by you without discussion, has numerous missing information that are necessary.--Tomcat (7) 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that after receiving the approval of PresN, nothing else needs to be discussed about how the template is designed. — ΛΧΣ21 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be better served discussing the merits of each template at the relevant wiki project than here, this is not the place to discuss it. NapHit (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess that after receiving the approval of PresN, nothing else needs to be discussed about how the template is designed. — ΛΧΣ21 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, you find it attractive or indiscriminate, but the readers will be happy to find the information they are searching for. Your Template:ListEntry/VG, created by you without discussion, has numerous missing information that are necessary.--Tomcat (7) 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need to give so much space and highlight to release dates? The games are already ordered by release date from earliest to latest, and release dates of each game are ordered per alphabetical console names. I don't find it useful to make a column for each release date per region. It is not attractive and looks indiscriminate. — ΛΧΣ21 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 08:30, 7 February 2013 [28].
- Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Ravendrop |
---|
*A Few Random Comments:
|
- Support Looks good. Ravendrop 02:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review...
That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look okay (no action required)
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*
|
- Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Try here perhaps? Goodraise 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wizardman 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 02:06, 8 January 2013 [29].
- Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking Glass Studios was a strange company, and this list reflects it. Their first game, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, is still legendary for its innovations; their second, John Madden Football '93, is hardly distinguishable from any other early Madden title. Famous games like Thief: The Dark Project and System Shock 2 rub shoulders with an obscure golf title and a cancelled kayaking game for the Nintendo 64. Big commercial successes like Flight Unlimited are followed by massive commercial failures like Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. The company cannot be summarized easily, but, with any luck, this list comes close to pulling it off. All credit goes to User:PresN for the list's layout and lead: I'm a newbie at this stuff, so I was mainly in charge of the grunt work. If he wants to place himself as a co-nominator, he's welcome to do so. In any case, I will work quickly to address any concerns that may arise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments by Hahc21 |
---|
Quick comments
|
- Support Okay. I have checked the list and I have no issues with it. Good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Further comments
|
- Support Great work, looks like a solid list. TBrandley 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – In terms of wanting to review this, you had me at Madden...
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Oppose in the current format. I really don't like the two-column format. I would prefer breaking the top of the second column into columns like: DOS release date, Windows release date, Other release dates, Cancellation date. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you clarify which criteria this candidate fails, or is it just your personal taste that causes you to oppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as someone involved in making this list, I would very much oppose Nergaal's proposed setup- having multiple entire columns that are only used by a few of the rows in a table is a waste of space. This template format is used in several other FLs, and I don't see the rationale behind opposing over it. --PresN 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I personally dislike the table, I agree with PresN. — ΛΧΣ21 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you guys explain what is the point of having tables if all the information is hidden in the tables in a way in which is really not easy to glance at? Why not just trasform the entries into paragraphs then? Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find the information hidden within the table. I find it well-structured (in some sort). — ΛΧΣ21 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you guys explain what is the point of having tables if all the information is hidden in the tables in a way in which is really not easy to glance at? Why not just trasform the entries into paragraphs then? Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I personally dislike the table, I agree with PresN. — ΛΧΣ21 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 27 December 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 Giants2008 00:27, 19 January 2013 [30].
- Nominator(s): Astros4477 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has received a peer review and I believe it meets all the criteria. Astros4477 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: I have a couple more quick comments after my peer review of this list:
That's all I have. TBrandley 21:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support TBrandley 19:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
Oppose
- Image licensing all seems OK to me
- Why are
Parkz, Experience the Point,Ultimate Roller Coasterand Roller Coaster Databasereliable?
—Andrewstalk 08:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimate Roller Coaster and Rolller Coaster Database have always been considered reliable. I'm not as too familiar with the other two. I'm sure other sources could be found to replace those if needed.--Astros4477 (talk) 15:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with RCDB (note that it should be in CamelCase—DataBase, not Database), but why has Ultimate Roller Coaster "always been considered reliable"? If more reliable sources are available that can replace dubious ones, then definitely do so. —Andrewstalk 22:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Im afraid Ultimate Roller Coaster and RCDB are the most reliable sources there are.--Astros4477 (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the Experience the Point ref, I'll look into the Parkz ref later.--Astros4477 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the Parkz reference. Themeparkgc Talk 00:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the Ultimate Roller Coaster refs where I could.--Astros4477 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still have reservations about the reliability of a few of the sources used (in addition to those listed above), but otherwise the list is in pretty good shape. I'll wait and see what other reviewers have to say about the sourcing issue. Adabow (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the last two Ultimate Roller Coaster refs.--Astros4477 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments aha, an interesting and different list, nice! Some quick comments...
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose – Per Adabow's source comments above. If two websites of uncertain reliability "are the most reliable sources there are", that tells me that a list based on them shouldn't be featured. Is there any evidence of their reliability other than being better than other unreliable sites? We need to know that they are reliable, not that they are the best in their field. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment - why are there no refs on rows Griffon and Alpengeist of table Tallest roller coasters inversions? And while I'm fine with RCDB based on it being used as a source in multiple news articles, the reason it raises red flags is that there's nothing about it that contradicts the idea that I could go out and submit data for a missing coaster which would be taken at face value by the admins, without fact checking. --PresN 04:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added references. I'm not familiar with the person that runs the site but I'm sure he only takes information from trusted sources.--Astros4477 (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only user-contributable part of the website is that of photography. For inclusion, roller coasters have to have been publicly announced by an amusement park or track must be visible onsite for an unknown future roller coaster. See this page for more. The site also has a team of 13 researchers which ensure the information is accurate. Themeparkgc Talk 01:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title is misleading I really thought that the article is about something else. Why isn't the article titled "List of roller coaster records"? Nergaal (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it's not just about records, its about rankings too. If it was titled records, you would just have, "First roller coaster with 5 inversions", "First roller coaster over 300 feet", "First roller coaster over 100 mph" etc. I think the title is suitable for what the article is about.--Astros4477 (talk) 22:25, 26 December 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 Giants2008 00:27, 19 January 2013 [33].
- Nominator(s): Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria and is on par with other similar articles—for example List of awards and nominations received by Rufus Wainwright. Idiotchalk (t@lk) 20:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments –
|
- Support looks good to me, Giants and TRM seem to have caught all of the issues! Just a query: is there a reason that lists of this sort don't use sortable tables? Harrias talk 16:40, 12 January 2013 (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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [34].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I've been working on this list for quite a long period of time. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick oppose - needs copyediting.
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support— Nice changes since my last review. Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose without citations. Vivvt was trying to figure it out with Directorate of Film Festivals on the copyrights issue. Moonriddengirl was somewhat involved in it. There was no conclusion of removal of citations. In worst case, citations could be cut short. But without citations this article is incomplete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in this case, we are copying citations from various catalogues and not just one. That much would be covered in fair-use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a requirement to add those citations just because other articles have that? I'm personally against adding those citations since the article wouldn't be benefited much from adding them. Also this being an encyclopedia, giving more weight age for them seems totally meaningless. I'd wait for others' opinion in this case. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation states why the jury considered this performance notable enough to be awarded. How is that meaningless? Meaningless would be that Role(s) column. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that Role(s) are not significant unless it is notable. I've added that since other award pages (Oscars) have them. But adding citations to an encyclopedia sounds like promotional stuff. Also the citations are not available for all the years, and it would look like dominating the whole table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not objecting that column of role(s). What i meant was that this column is more meaningless than those citations in comparison. And how is it promotional? If someone jumps in a fire and saves 3 kids and wins National Bravery Award will stating the reason for conferring the award be promotional? What is being promoted here? In such case, stating that someone won such and such award is itself promotional. All award articles are promotional then. And we cant help if citations were never given previously by DFF. And whats wrong with it dominating the list? Currently the beautiful faces are dominating the list. Better the award list is dominated by what they did than how they generally look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not presenting a book on Indian cinema to praise the acting performances of our actors. Inclusion of images are a part of the FLC criterion. We have a separate project for those who are keen on quotes. Besides, overusage of quotations, which you're suggesting is not advisable too. As I said earlier, I'd wait for others to comment on this issue. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking??? Its Obvious!!! The FLC writers wont have a divination that someone is gonna raise a FLC for a award given in India whose jury will state reasons of granting awards. Why will they ever write whether citations is needed or not?!?!?! Criterion like these will never be speaking about everything. How will they ever possibly do that?? Thats why they say that comprehensiveness is needed in the article. When you are excluding the reason for grating the award, the article is not comprehensive; its incomplete, especially when such citation is present. Filmfare's jury doesn't speak about it and hence no citation is needed there. But it is needed here as the information is available.
And i don't understand why is it so difficult for you to get the grip of what exactly is educational and what is not. It does not matter what the character's name was. It does not matter what language the film was in. But it matters what exactly appealed to that jury that they thought of worth complimenting with this award. In the notes column of Bharat Ratna for Lata Mangeshkar, we do not write that she is a Hindu or has long hair or has composed under name Anandghan. We write "Playback singer". Because that's why she has been conferred by that award; not for all the other things that she is.
And i have already said that you may do whatever you wish to do. My oppose doesn't stop any of the FL directors from putting a star on this page. They will do what they wish to do.
And if you want "your-definition" constructive comments, i have those too. Change the colour scheme of the list back to yellow shades. It matches with all the 130 articles and 17 templates of NFA. Of course, i understand that you must have changed it to blue as it wasn't mentioned in FLC. Also it does not matter in which year the award ceremony took place. The awards are given for films certified in that calendar year. Both 16th National Film Awards and 17th National Film Awards were presented in 1970 but they weren't for one and the same year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking??? Its Obvious!!! The FLC writers wont have a divination that someone is gonna raise a FLC for a award given in India whose jury will state reasons of granting awards. Why will they ever write whether citations is needed or not?!?!?! Criterion like these will never be speaking about everything. How will they ever possibly do that?? Thats why they say that comprehensiveness is needed in the article. When you are excluding the reason for grating the award, the article is not comprehensive; its incomplete, especially when such citation is present. Filmfare's jury doesn't speak about it and hence no citation is needed there. But it is needed here as the information is available.
- There are many things to be included other than these floral compliments. We have other things like jury, presenter, etc., We cannot go ahead and add all those which other people might think are essential. I've included the "roles" column since similar FLs follow that pattern. As I said earlier, this is not "wikiquote" to include chunks of quotations. I'm not going to set a new precedent to new FLs by including these citations. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again! They are not floral comments. They are comments by much esteemed jury members, definitely better qualified than you. When students of cinema will be studying these awards, they would want to know WHY the award was presented. FLs and FAs on WP should not be made just because they look good. They should be complete with relevant encyclopaedic information.
Frankly speaking i dont think you understand what educational information is and what a filler trivial is. It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else. That's the reason you also seem to be worried about all the work required to write citations. Well then there is a good line for you; "Wikipedia is not compulsory". And i am no longer replying to your nonsensical replies. My oppose stands as it is. FL directors can decide whatever they want. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again! They are not floral comments. They are comments by much esteemed jury members, definitely better qualified than you. When students of cinema will be studying these awards, they would want to know WHY the award was presented. FLs and FAs on WP should not be made just because they look good. They should be complete with relevant encyclopaedic information.
- A single question which you never bothered to answer. In what way are these citations encyclopedic? We include them just to add some essence to the article. Including them just because one person likes it doesn't seem sensible at least to me. I'm not begging for your support, so let's stop here as I don't have time to respond for such frivolous questions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else". Making these kind of statements are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If getting FLs is my only goal, I have tons of lists to look into. It is evident that you along with one more editor take it as a personal vengeance for the failure of the 59th NFA FLC and are planning to spoil this process. If that's your wish, good try! I don't have to listen to such bad-faith people and nothing stops me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we have any existing FL where these type of citations (comments from Jury why this candidate was selected as the best) are used? Otherwise, it does not seem to be a good precedence to create. For Best Films of the year or Best Direction of the year, these can still make some sense, but for Best Actor or Best Actress it always boils down to something like this: "he/she was able to bring about a wide range of emotions" or "he/she portrayed the character (after specifying few specifics about the character) very nicely". So, how can they add any value to an encyclopedic article? --GDibyendu (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have no FLs that I'm aware of that contain massive copyright violations, nor repeat verbatim these hagiographical citations which are in no real way encyclopedic. By all means link out to reliable sources that publish this kind of rubbish, but we don't want it polluting an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments: Compared with the article Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. This one has got FL status in 2012. The following differences in presentation should be removed:
Otherwise, it looks good.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great improvement with new references from IFFI.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Let me start off by saying that I don't think we want text copied from a website inserted wholesale into an FL candidate. I don't mind seeing a quote or two to liven up the writing, but almost 50 of them is borderline copyvio.
|
- Support - Great improvement meets the criteria Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 14:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dwaipayanc
|
---|
"The State Awards instituted the individual award in 1968 as the "Urvashi Award for the Best Actress"" What does "individual award" mean here? This particular award? Or, in general, awards for individuals (such as actors or actresses)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Now that all my concerns (discussed above) have been addressed satisfactorily, I feel this list meets featured list criteria. Nice job!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2013 (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 21:04, 11 January 2013 [35].
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This follows the success of Grade I listed buildings in Coventry. Some things are a little different—for example, the images are down the side rather than in the table because there are fewer of them and ancient monuments are less photogenic (several are now just patches of grass), but the two lists are very similar. Also, note the lack of "list of", as "schedule" and "list" in this context are synonymous, so the prefix would be redundant in my opinion. As always, comments and suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
"is now occupied by a school, and is now" no need to repeat "now".
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a nice list which meets my understanding of the criteria, and, as always, comments dealt with in good faith. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support superb list, meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no concerns here. Consider archiving your references with archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes in websites don't mess up your sourcing, but that's optional. --PresN 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"Like several of the other monuments in the city, the Coventry's city walls...". Don't think Conventry should have the 's in front of it here.- Fixed
Images could use alt text.Giants2008 (Talk) 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I could have sworn I'd done it earlier, but added now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 8 January 2013 (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 Giants2008 21:15, 11 January 2013 [36].
- Nominator(s): Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could go in depth about how the Texans are going to be the best team of the 2010's and such, but all I'll say is that, after what felt like an eternity of adjustments to address points made during the first FLC, I finally think this List meets the FL criteria. But that's your decision. Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment – I see a hyphen that should be a dash after the third word of the lead, a "have all been once" that doesn't clarify what the players have been, and a further "He has since been one more time" that also doesn't have a subject. Despite the preparation that has gone into the list, I'm still not convinced that it's ready for the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
My comments are now capped, but I hope others will offer input here to reassure me that this meets FL standards. Oh, and ref 29 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the collection of references in the lead for Johnson's appearances: try compressing them into one note, like I did at Herbie Hewett#Notes and references.
- Slightly confused as to how I'd word it, but will do. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The player column should sort by surname, not forename.
- Please help with that, I don't know how to fix that. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't center and cornerback linked in the position column, and the 2011 instance of halfback?
- No explanation of the difference between starter, reserve and alternate is given.
- The second-half first paragraph appears to do little more than list all the players in the list below, which seems redundant. I appreciate the point of mentioning that Johnson has been invited five times, but to list everyone seems like overkill.
- "Foster has since been selected one more time, totaling two selections." This sentence jars a little for me: the reader can work out that one selection, plus one selection, makes two selections.
- In general the prose just doesn't really do much in my opinion. It doesn't really provide much "editorial comment" on the list below, it simply reiterates the information.
- In the table, the statistics list "xx yards", but to a layperson (like me) that means nothing. Some explanation needs to be provided.
- Confused as to what I"d write. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Myers statistics seem very bare: do centers not really do anything? Also, why does this cell use capital letters, unlike the rest of the column?
- Centers (as well as tackles/guards) sometimes have blocking statistics recorded, but that's subject to the statistician's definition of a "block" and weren't used on either ESPN or NFL.com. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the distinction between tackles and solo tackles seems odd to a layperson: is tackling normally done as a group?
- Tackles can be done as a group (two people coming from either side of a player) or by one player (one person charging head on). The same applies to sacks (half a sack is when two people sack the quarterback at the same time).
- I don't really understand what a "sack" is from the article linked to (which isn't your problem) but I'm just wondering how someone can have half a "sack"?
- See the tackles point above. Buggie111 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2006 Jerome Mathis column doesn't have a comma in a four digit number for yards.
- Refs #10, #11, #34, #35 use a different date format to the rest. Harrias talk 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Buggie111 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The end of the sentence regarding Foster was suggested by TBrandley in their sixth comment, so some consensus regarding that should be reached here (I'm in favor of removing). The lede length was a main concern at the previous FLC, where, despite having information from both the Houston Texans and Pro Bowl article (which I rather foolishly simply duplicated onto the list disregarding copyvio rules), both reviewers opposed based on length. I received some help about the lede from Giants2008 in October (see this), so it's probably goign to be discussed here. I'd also like some help regarding the surname sorting. Buggie111 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pinged for a return visit on my talk page, but it is unclear why. If the reason was the surname sorting, I suggest taking a look at current candidate Euroscar, which has proper sorting, and seeing how that list formats things. It's not that hard to fix once you know what to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the lead, my friend. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I'm not sure how much help I can be. I do see Harrias' point about the lead being a little plain. Is there anything that could be added saying why the players were selected, or any unique aspects about their Pro Bowl performances? There's a place for first/most recent/most frequent selections, but perhaps some details on those aspects would help to address Harrias' concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, not really. Just the amounts of yards/TDs/FF's/INT's they recorded for the most part, except Leach and Myers. Buggie111 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in sortname, but can't seem to get Smith to link to the DE or for the sort options to appear in the table header. Buggie111 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first issue, pipe the full name of the article after the first and last names. It will look like this: Antonio|Smith|Antonio Smith (defensive end). Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Buggie111 (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first issue, pipe the full name of the article after the first and last names. It will look like this: Antonio|Smith|Antonio Smith (defensive end). Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in sortname, but can't seem to get Smith to link to the DE or for the sort options to appear in the table header. Buggie111 (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, not really. Just the amounts of yards/TDs/FF's/INT's they recorded for the most part, except Leach and Myers. Buggie111 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I'm not sure how much help I can be. I do see Harrias' point about the lead being a little plain. Is there anything that could be added saying why the players were selected, or any unique aspects about their Pro Bowl performances? There's a place for first/most recent/most frequent selections, but perhaps some details on those aspects would help to address Harrias' concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the lead, my friend. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pinged for a return visit on my talk page, but it is unclear why. If the reason was the surname sorting, I suggest taking a look at current candidate Euroscar, which has proper sorting, and seeing how that list formats things. It's not that hard to fix once you know what to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be out of town during the announcement of the 2013 Pro Bowlers, which means I'll only be able to add in info come the 1st. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, over a month after my initial comments, and the prose section is still very bland. Criteria 2 requires: "Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." Harrias talk 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For Brain Hoyer's sake, there's nothing much to add to it. Dpo you have any ideas? All the football related FL's (see List of Baltimore Ravens first-round picks) have about as detailed of a lead as this one, some focusing even more on the draft than the team. Buggie111 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any major suggestions for what to add to it, no. But just as some articles don't have enough content to ever reach Featured article status, there are lists in the same situation. Not everything can be a Featured list, and if there isn't information that provides an engaging lead, then perhaps this is such a case. Harrias talk 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 09:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (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 02:06, 8 January 2013 [37].
- Nominator(s): — Bill william comptonTalk 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets all the criteria. I've worked extensively on this. I will endeavour to answer any queries, concerns and comments. Thank you for your attention to this nomination. — Bill william comptonTalk 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
TBrandley 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support on all criteria. TBrandley (what's up) 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, good referencing, just a caveat that hopefully the nominator and/or other interested users will update the "pending" entries over time. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
;Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Solid list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Source comments –
|
- Oppose? to be honest, it is not very clear to me that this list deserves to be a stand-alone one. Essentially asides from PCA, TCA and Saturn, all the other awards are minor at best. And of these 3 only the Saturn one is actually prestigious. Even then, if only the 3 are kept, this list can easily be incorporated into the main series article, at least for the time being. Nergaal (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was any criterion for "prestigiousness". This is very subjective. I consider every notable (large media coverage and being covered by multiple reliable primary and secondary sources) award prestigious, for you only Saturn Award crosses this threshold and perhaps for someone only EGOT are prestigious. List (including accompanying prose) is big enough to be accommodated in the main article. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a criterion for prestigiousness. It's simply Nergaal's opinion that some awards are more important than others unless referenced. I see no issue with this, all lists of this type include nominations from every award the film/tv show was nominated for. We don't exclude based on some sense of one being more important than the other. Therefore, as I am concerned, the list should not be merged into the parent article as Nergaal states. NapHit (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, Nergaal's"personal preference" is really not of any note with regard to the notability of awards. Why on earth he would suggest deleting a massive number of awards and then merging back into the main article is entirely beyond me. This will be a call for Giants2008 unless the nomination drags on a bit, but I will disregard the above "personal" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know there was any criterion for "prestigiousness". This is very subjective. I consider every notable (large media coverage and being covered by multiple reliable primary and secondary sources) award prestigious, for you only Saturn Award crosses this threshold and perhaps for someone only EGOT are prestigious. List (including accompanying prose) is big enough to be accommodated in the main article. — Bill william comptonTalk 14:58, 30 December 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.
Nominations for removal
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks context and more (you can check at the talk page) GeniusTaker (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this page was not transcluded to the nominations for removal page until a moment ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified the original nominator and two relevant WikiProjects. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: WP:WikiProject Florida
After browsing some of the featured lists, I did a bit of verification and found many errors. The list appears to be incomplete, does not match the official list, and I tried a few links and found unverified information. It also has old style of lead: very short and starts with "This is a list of ". It also has a paragraph explaining the list, but not in note form. So the entire body of text is a few sentences. Several entries have no citations whatsoever. I'm afraid this list based on citing alone is very very far from featured standards. Original user appears to have deleted account. Mattximus (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I've notified WP:WikiProject Florida. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television
Unfortunately I feel that several older 30 Rock items are failing modern standards. I am beginning here as I feel it is a clear cut example. I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that it fails criterias 3 and 5. It lacks a development section as detailed in MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The awards section features no prose and points to a separate list which covers other content in addition to season one. Adtionally neither a caption nor alt text is provided when needed. Lastly a possible style problem with the relevent episodes not being linked in the cast section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I've said a time or two that most season articles should actually be a process for WP:FAC and not FLC. I do understand that a large majority of these are were promoted quite a while ago, and that in recent times, they gone through the proper channels, but I also wouldn't be against a mass exodus of these articles as FL's. They tend to follow the format of a standard article more that of a list. Anyhow, within this "list" specifically: as the initial commenter stated, I'm largely noticing a lack of compliance with MOS:TV in the case of article layout, listing the number of episodes characters appeared in, and poorly written episode summaries that feel more like promotional taglines than they do summaries. There's also just a few general MOS failures, such as WP:BLUESEA violations and the use of {{Quote box}}. I'd be more inclined to leave a full review if I see progress being made here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... potential hot take but I don't see any major issues. Sourcing seems fine, so I'm assuming the nomination is discussing FLCR #3(a) more than 3(b), and 3(a) is focused on including all key items in the set the list covers (which this does – it lists all of the episodes). A production section would be nice, but I don't interpret MOS:TVPRODUCTION as requiring one and I suspect a large portion of the information would just reiterate the cast and crew sections. An awards section that would just duplicate information from the show's full list of awards may not be necessary, either – just a few sentences added to cover its major awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, major guilds...). As to FLCR #5, I think the only issue mentioned is the images per 5(b) and 5(c), which can be easily addressed. Basically, I think the page does its job as a list. Whether season articles should be considered as lists or articles is a bit out of scope for this, at least to me. Please correct me if I've misunderstood the issues raised in the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Would you mind clarifying a bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, a few sentences would be preferable over nothing for the awards. If you look at it as List of episodes it fits the requirements, but its more than a list of episodes. Future devolopement have raised the bar for what a season article should be and this list no longer meets those standereds. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pinging you because it was a while between your reply and the above and I wanted to make sure you saw it @RunningTiger123. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, thanks for the ping. I think a lot of the issues stem from the issue of seasons being split between GA/FA and FL, and while I'm fine with removing this FL if the consensus is that standards have increased, I think we're going to need a wider discussion about what season articles should include (i.e., are they primarily lists or articles?). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: I agree that it's something that may need to be more ironed out, as there's also a similar issue with seasons of The Office. Perhaps this is a discussion that should be held at a wider location to determine whether season articles are better classified as lists or articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone interested, I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists#FLs for television seasons on this topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: I agree that it's something that may need to be more ironed out, as there's also a similar issue with seasons of The Office. Perhaps this is a discussion that should be held at a wider location to determine whether season articles are better classified as lists or articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, thanks for the ping. I think a lot of the issues stem from the issue of seasons being split between GA/FA and FL, and while I'm fine with removing this FL if the consensus is that standards have increased, I think we're going to need a wider discussion about what season articles should include (i.e., are they primarily lists or articles?). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just pinging you because it was a while between your reply and the above and I wanted to make sure you saw it @RunningTiger123. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, a few sentences would be preferable over nothing for the awards. If you look at it as List of episodes it fits the requirements, but its more than a list of episodes. Future devolopement have raised the bar for what a season article should be and this list no longer meets those standereds. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Would you mind clarifying a bit? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]