Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions
prom 3 |
→Nominations: seems like the nominator has forgot to do this |
||
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 songs recorded by Lana Del Rey/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Army campaigns during World War II/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Army campaigns during World War II/archive1}} |
Revision as of 21:22, 25 July 2015
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 promoted by Giants2008 02:14, 11 August 2015 [1].
- Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working on this list of songs recorded by American chamber and art pop singer-songwriter Lana Del Rey for about one and a half years trying to get it to the highest quality possible and I would like to see it achieve featured list status. I would appreciate any comments. Greetings, Littlecarmen (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from West Virginian (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Review by West Virginian
|
- Support Littlecarmen, this is the most authoritative and comprehensive Lana Del Rey song recordings list out there, and I hereby support its passage to Featured List status. -- West Virginian (talk) 12:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
Next time when you nominate an article for FLC, please do this. I would appreciate it if you also look mine. -- Frankie talk 09:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Looks good. -- Frankie talk 10:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Azealia911
Looking good otherwise. Azealia911 talk 17:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Another happy support after comments are addressed quickly and politely, always a pleasure :) Azealia911 talk 21:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
I'll give this a deeper look later on but here are some initial comments. Looks pretty good.
Cowlibob (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 11 August 2015 (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 02:14, 11 August 2015 [3].
- Nominator(s): Joseph2302 (talk) and —Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied up the table a bit. Look forward to comments and suggestions —Vensatry (ping) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Azealia911
General
Lead
Key
vibe that they are unrelated.
==One Day International centuries on debut== ===Key=== *Key* *Table* ODI centuries on debut
Notes
References
Think that's everything I spotted. Azealia911 talk 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
Looking a lot better Azealia911 talk 10:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once these are addressed I'll happily support. Azealia911 talk 13:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Can now happily Support per all comments being addressed. Would appreciate any feedback at an FLC I opened, thanks. Azealia911 talk 19:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azealia911: Will review your nomination soon. —Vensatry (ping) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "While at least one player from seven of the ten teams..." I think "Although" would sound better starting this sentence, rather than "While". It might be better completely reworked to something like "Players representing seven of the ten teams that have full member status have scored an ODI century on debut; no players from Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka have accomplished the feat."
- It would be more interesting (to me, at least) to note that Amiss' century came in the second ODI ever played, rather than it being in "the first match of the Prudential Trophy in 1972".
- "His record was broken..." What record? You haven't mentioned a record. I assume, given what follows, you mean the highest score on debut, but the only thing mentioned previous is that Amiss was the first player to score a century on debut, and that record clearly can't be beaten!
- "the most recent cricketer to score a debut ODI century." The term "debut ODI century" is a bit ambiguous, as it is also used to refer to a player's first century, even if they score it in their seventeenth match! I would rephrase this for clarity.
- "..his team has lost two times." I'd change "his" to "their" personally.
- Ref #9 is missing an author.
- Ha! Just noticed that this wasn't an author at all. Must pay attention to foreign languages! Harrias talk 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #10 has a typo in the work name ("Aamanack"!) and should take an endash, rather than a hyphen in the year range. Harrias talk 09:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Hope everything is fixed. Thanks for the review —Vensatry (ping) 17:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great work, and good quick responses. Well done! Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell/archive2? Harrias talk 19:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:48, 11 August 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC), Hawkeye7 (talk), and Gecko G (talk)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a well organized list and is suitably written. It passed an A-class list review earlier this month. Just a list of all the (notable) campaigns that the Army served in during World War II. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.
- I supported this article at A Class and re-reading it I think it is FL standard. A couple of minor points.
- The lines - Gustav Line etc - are italicized even though they are not in the lines' own articles.
Done
- "American troops hit the beaches, near Algiers, behind a large American flag, hoping for Vichy French troops not to fire." As you mention that they were hoping for the French not to fire, you should say whether they did.
Done
- Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tables review - Needs MOS:DTT formatting to each table. Specifically, based on how you set these up, I think the column headers need the scope="col" , as in This Example. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66: Done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images review - Good use of appropriately licensed images; all images captioned. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citation error check - No issues found. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you for taking care of the tables issue so quickly. A-class review seems to have vetted much on this article. Well done. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
Support: Tomandjerry211 (alt), Tomandjerry211, Hawkeye7, and Gecko G, I assess that this list meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. A review of the images, their licenses and captions, the references, and the formatting did not turn up any errors or questions. I hereby support this list and congratulate you all on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (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 SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My 10th nomination on the filmography of an Indian celebrity. This one is about Shahid Kapoor's film, television, and music video roles. As usual, look forward to constructive comments. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Note
- The nominator seem to have retired abruptly. If anyone would like to review the list and finds any issues, please let me know. I would like to get this done for and on the behalf of the nominator. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Users may add comments, and I will try to solve them all. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vivvt: So will I. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
- There are three redirects and a dead link present here. Fix them.
- Done
- Wikilink "caper thriller".
- Done
- "proved to be his first commercial success in three years" — Should be four years as Kaminey was released in 2009.
- Done
- @Vivvt: That's about it from me. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have resolved all your comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vivvt: Thanks for resolving them, Vivvt. I support this article's promotion to FL. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Based on what my experience, the list looks fine. I might add more comments, but for now it looks okay.
- Support Good list. Found a few minor things to fix but have dealt with them myself. Cowlibob (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2015 (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 SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [6].
- Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is well referenced and is modeled after several featured lists about the Grammy Awards, Latin Grammy Awards and Lo Nuestro Awards. I will be watching this nomination closely in order to follow your recommendations. Thanks in advance. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Second sentence of second para is too long. Count the words (98).
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher for Billboard is Prometheus Global Media for ref. 9 while it is Nielsen Business Media, Inc for source 15. Main consistency.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref. 16, 18, 21, 22, 23 and 28 should be changed from "Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company" to "Los Angeles Times (Tribune Company)" to maintain consistency.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Spy does not need to be in italics in ref. 35.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Billboard Staff" is redundant as seen in ref. 43 and 44.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A QPQ? -- Frankie talk 20:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Like AB said, the list looks great. -- Frankie talk 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It has been a long time since I've promoted or even endorsed an FL, but I think this list looks really great and appears to be consistent with similar featured Grammy lists. Well done! ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you AB, very proud of this, I am very glad that you liked it, I am a big fan of your work. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
This is a comment.
Comments from Magiciandude
Otherwise it looks good. Erick (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Great job as always! Erick (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you could just fix one more thing? On Ref 7, you listed it as a journal when it's a book. It also states that's in Spanish when the books is actually written in English. Erick (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome! Good job! Erick (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A five-paragraph lead is far too long for a list like this...
- The lead has only four and I still think is short, there are 31 winners in the category. I think it is correct as is. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Table needs !scope="row" tags
- A dead link (ref 2)
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All files, minus File:Ricardo Arjona at Managua, Nicaragua (2).jpg, need personality rights warnings at the Commons, except for files of deceased persons
- Fixed (Thanks (Erick). Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the lead could probably be condensed to two sentences.
- This category had a lot of changes, but I'll try to edit the paragraph.
- That year recordings in this category were shifted to the newly formed Best Latin Pop, Rock or Urban Album violation of MOS:BOLDTITLE.
- Ok, fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Puerto Rican American singer hyphen after "Puerto"
- Erick asked me to remove it, which suggestion should I take into consideration? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Erick's right, our article Puerto Rican American doesn't hyphenate. Seattle (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Erick asked me to remove it, which suggestion should I take into consideration? Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Use of color in the table should be restricted to one cell per MOS:COLOR. Seattle (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I will fix it. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I will fix it. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Seattle: I know this isn't my nomination, but I've never seen a hyphen between "Puerto" and "Rican" anywhere in the English language. Not even the article uses them. Could you point out where a hyphen must be included between those two words? Erick (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Azealia911
Oppose at the moment, based on the reference issue I found, I'll happily strike it if it's turned around. Azealia911 talk 23:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
With all my comments resolved, I can happily Support. Would also appreciate any feedback on my current FLC, cheers. Azealia911 talk 13:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2015 (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 PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I felt it was important. Its pretty much a list of the entire Soviet party leadership 1930–1934. If someone notices why so many people died during the 1930s its because Stalin killed them. Thanks, --TIAYN (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Colipon:
- Under "plenums", I don't see it as necessary to have two columns for "Plenum (CC)" and "Joint plenum (CC–CCC)". I am also not sure if it is necessary to capture the number of days in a separate column. In my view, this section should be listed as a set of bullet points rather than a table, but this is my personal preference. A summary of what the significance of each plenum was would also be nice.
- First, I'll remove the days (no problem). I prefer tableizing it (since everything else is tableized), The reason I have two columns is that the plenary session and the joint plenary session had different powers; the CC–CCC plenums could expel members.. Stalin, early in the 1920s, gained control of the CCC (roughly the Soviet counterpart of the CDIC) and used it to expel members (which could only be done through joint CC–CCC plenums). Its a way to highlight its importance. But I'll remove it. No biggy.... As for a summary of plenary sessions, that's much trickier than you'd think. Unlike the CPC, which has a tendency to issue grand policy statements through the CPC Central Committee the CPSU did it through the PB, the government and sometimes the CC itself—therefore, details on CC sessions vary... In any case, done everything you commanded, and I'll be working on finding short summaries of the CC plenary sessions (but I can't promise you any success)...--TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do this tomorrow; Its election season in Norway and I want my party to win.. I'll begin looking at it tomorrow or tuesday... Sorry for the inconvenience + please don't close the FLC until at least wednesday.. I'll fix this. --TIAYN (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First, I'll remove the days (no problem). I prefer tableizing it (since everything else is tableized), The reason I have two columns is that the plenary session and the joint plenary session had different powers; the CC–CCC plenums could expel members.. Stalin, early in the 1920s, gained control of the CCC (roughly the Soviet counterpart of the CDIC) and used it to expel members (which could only be done through joint CC–CCC plenums). Its a way to highlight its importance. But I'll remove it. No biggy.... As for a summary of plenary sessions, that's much trickier than you'd think. Unlike the CPC, which has a tendency to issue grand policy statements through the CPC Central Committee the CPSU did it through the PB, the government and sometimes the CC itself—therefore, details on CC sessions vary... In any case, done everything you commanded, and I'll be working on finding short summaries of the CC plenary sessions (but I can't promise you any success)...--TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colipon: I'm unable to find info regarding the CC plenary sessions... --TIAYN (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Under "apparatus", is it possible to consolidate cells for which there are multiple officeholders for the same department? For example, Agitation and Mass Campaign Department, Central Asian Bureau, Secret Department, and so on.
Done My preference for the abbreviation of "candidate member" is actually "PB (C)" rather than "CPB" as "CPB" may intuitively invoke "Central Politburo". Colipon+(Talk) 16:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colipon: THanks! --TIAYN (talk) 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*Object Star of David Unicode symbol may present an accessibility issue as screen readers may not know how to read it aloud. Suggest templating the symbol as an image with appropriate alternate text. Once this has been done and replaced in the article, then this issue can be considered resolved. Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thisisnotatest: Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trust Is All You Need: Confirmed and struck out. Thisisnotatest (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thisisnotatest: Fixed. --TIAYN (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – I noticed this list lingering towards the bottom of FLC. Because it risks being closed at this rate, allow me to offer a review and maybe we can get this over the line in time.
Overall, this looks pretty good to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – I'm comfortable enough to believe that the list meets the FL criteria that I'll recuse myself from closing duties. One of the delegates should be closing the FLC now, but they're both active here so that shouldn't be a problem. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Maile 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
...
Comments from Maile
|
Support - Good job. Thanks for sticking with this. — Maile (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as passed --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (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 PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) and Adamstom.97 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC) [reply]
This list meets all of the criteria, is similar to its "sister" article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films (which is a featured list), and is a worthy candidate to add to the ever expanding good and featured articles under the Marvel Cinematic Universe banner. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "One-Shot", capitalised and blue-linked as part of something that doesn't explain what it means (although it can be inferred) is probably worth avoiding. Perhaps "pilot film", or a link to Marvel One-Shots would be better.
Done. Broke up the link.
- "because S.H.I.E.L.D. is so strong on the moment" -> If this is how the source words it, we could do with a [sic] after "on" since it really should be "at the moment".
Done. This is how the source words it, so added sic.
- Your descriptions of the shows should probably begin with an introduction of some sort to signify they're "in universe", since there's no heading to indicate a difference between describing plot and describing production. Something like changing "Agent Phil Coulson puts together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" to "Agents of SHIELD sees agent Phil Coulson putting together a small team of S.H.I.E.L.D. agents to handle strange new cases" would suffice.
- This is following a similar format from the sister films list, and I don't believe there has been an issue distinguishing the in-universe from the real world info. I'll ping the other creator to see what they feel. @Adamstom.97:
- That's fair enough. It's not of vital importance either way. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, there's a fair bit of assumption that the reader knows plot information already--a quick aside at the first in-universe mention of things like SHIELD, Hydra, etc to explain what they are would be useful.
- These uses are meant to be quick overviews of each series and appearances in them. It is meant to push the reader to the actual articles for the show to gain more info on things read here.
- I get that it's not wise to be bogged down in too much detail but it helps to be self-contained to a degree, or you do end up with the impression of jargon. It could be worth seeing if a reviewer unfamiliar with the concepts would struggle or be happy enough with it. GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into adjusting this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this what you meant? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They seem manageable for now but I can see the recurring cast tables growing quite unwieldy with the addition of even one or two more series/seasons; while it is a good idea to show the cast/character crossovers, it might be worth considering how to handle this as it evolves.
- That bridge will be crossed when we get there, but yes, it is something we have our eye on.
- DVR could use a pipe link to explain it, as it's not a universal or international term.
Done.
- The "critical response" table is presented without any context. Throw in a quick sentence or two under the header, before the table, explaining the role of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes.
- I added a hat note under "reception". I don't feel Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes need a sentence explaining them, when they are wikilinked, and readers can follow that to see what each site is.
- There's no alt text for any images, this is needed.
Done.
- On the subject of images, we have several free files used throughout the article, which lessens the justification for a non-free files in the lead (especially when the Marvel logo is apparently PD).
- How so?
- WP:NFCC #1 requires that there is "no free equivalent"; the file as it stands is just window dressing, it doesn't actually serve the purpose of demonstration, explanation or commentary--and in that role we do have free equivalents, as the logo of the company responsible, or portraits of several of the cast members, would serve the same purpose.GRAPPLE X 10:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd argue that no free alternative exists to represent these series. The Marvel logo is too generic, and cast members are not good images to use for this article. They are used at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors, where it is more applicable. The current image is not the best overall encompassing image (as it excludes the Netflix series), but it is the best alternative. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is still just decorative, however. It might be the most appropriate decoration, but this isn't what fair use permits. GRAPPLE X 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just in the office for now so I haven't been able to do a source review or anything, but I can come back to this again at home to look into it further. GRAPPLE X 08:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added responses to your queries above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have some comments on the newer additions:
- If the article is simply "Luke Cage (TV series)", why is it piped each time as "Marvel's Luke Cage"?
- The Luke Cage heading has another one-line paragraph, as do many of the others. Expand these or merge them into the next paragraph--it's okay to have a one-paragraph heading if the heading break makes sense, as it does here.
- There are a lot of duplicate links in prose--in tables that's fine, same with image captions or the like, but both the lead and the body feature multiple instances of some links. Try using User:Ucucha/duplinks to catch these.
- GRAPPLE X 08:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That is the official title of each series, Marvel's X. For each series, it is noted in the lead, table and section as the "official" title. All other uses use the common name of the series title without Marvel's in front of it.
- The one-line paragraphs are following the format established by the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films page, which I explain in more detail with reasoning below in my comments to The Rambling Man, fourth bullet point from the bottom.
- I've taken care of the overlinks.
- - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
@The Rambling Man and Grapple X: Any outstanding issues for either of you? (Do note, since you've both last commented, some more info has been added to the page, if you'd like to check that.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note - this nomination has been open for two months without any supports; before I close it let me do one last ping to see if the reviewers will return to support- @The Rambling Man and Grapple X: are you willing to support this list? --PresN 14:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm leaning more to support than oppose; still not super keen on the one-line paragraphs (I see the explanation, I don't agree that it can't be reworked until being expanded in future) or the non-free decorative image, but if Rambler wants to support then count me as another support. GRAPPLE X 15:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry, but this nomination has been here for 2 months without any supports, only one half-support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to re-nominate it in the future. --PresN 20:46, 23 September 2015 (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 SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [9].
- Nominator(s): Sahara4u, Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graeme Swann is England's best spin bowler of the modern era. Were it not for his childish antics when he was originally called up by England that meant he was dropped and ignored by the coach at the time, he may have set a number of records. As it was, he managed a fair bit in his somewhat shortened career until a combination of injuries and Australians forced his retirement. Following the style set by plenty of similar lists before, this list summarises his five-wicket hauls. The list was initially created by Sahara4u, and I recently went through and tidied up the prose and the table to bring it up to what I hope are FL standards. As usual, all comments, improvements and thoughts are welcome! Harrias talk 08:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
"17 in Tests and one in ODIs" – see WP:NUMNOTES.- "The English cricket journalist Scyld Berry" – I don't know if "the" is needed.
- It very much is in British English (and to be honest, any "professional standard" of English). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes. I didn't notice that the subject is British. My bad! -- Frankie talk 20:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "He did not claim any five-wicket haults in T20I cricket; his best bowling figures in the format were three wickets for 13 runs" – again, see NUMNOTES.
- In this case I disagree. The number of wickets and runs are not comparable quantities really. I'm not against changing if you really insist, but I don't think the MOS requires it. Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOSTRIKE says "do not use unpronounceable symbols". I am not sure if asterisks are one of them; it does not look appealing to me. Instead, you could use a hashtag or something.
- Changed it to § ({{Section-sign}}). Harrias talk 20:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3: ESPNcricinfo and ESPN should be de-linked and instead, they could be linked to ref. 1 as you have linked on first occurrences.
Pretty nice list. -- Frankie talk 10:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – See above. -- Frankie talk 11:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Other than these comments, the list looks in good shape. NapHit (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Great work! NapHit (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
—Vensatry (ping) 18:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Nice work —Vensatry (ping) 17:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2015 (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 withdrawn by Crisco 1492 00:51, 14 August 2015 [10].
- Nominator(s): AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has received a copyedit from the Guild of Copyeditors. The issues raised in the previous nomination were addressed.
Although the search is ongoing, there has not been a lot of events associated with the search in recent months. Since November 2014, there has only been about 1-2 events per month (and a few of the events listed aren't very significant). Most of the events occurred between March-May 2014 and the start of the current phase in October 2014. I believe the list meets the stability criteria because it "does not change significantly from day to day". AHeneen (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - Subject is a current event and may have a significant amount of content added in the coming days and weeks. AHeneen (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 01:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC) [11][reply]
- Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive listing of Attorneys General of West Virginia, with an adequate introduction that provides history and context to the state office. I welcome your comments and suggestions so that I can further improve upon this list so that it meets Featured List status criteria. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comment – Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Since you haven't gained at least one support for Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1, I suggest the nominator to withdraw one of their nominations. -- Frankie talk 21:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
|
- Support – Wasn't able to spot any other issue. -- Frankie talk 23:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FrB.TG, thank you for your support, and for showing me the ropes. I don't often nominate lists for FL, so I appreciate your guidance and will heed your advice for next time. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Littlecarmen
|
- Support Great job! Littlecarmen (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just nominated a list for featured list status myself. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your time and support Littlecarmen! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
====Comments from Azealia911====
That's all I spotted so far, a good list! Azealia911 talk 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, comments addressed quickly and politely (almost too politely!
) Any comments at my FLC are greatly appreciated! Azealia911 talk 18:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent work on the list, West Virginian. Just a quick question — Shouldn't the title of the list article be "List of Attorney Generals of West Virginia" instead of "List of Attorneys General of West Virginia"? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review and for your support, Ssven2! In this case, attorney general is a postpositive adjective where the attributive adjective is placed after the noun. Plurals of expressions with postpositives will always have a plural noun, like "attorneys general," "princesses royal," and "passers-by." I hope this helps! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2015 (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 PresN 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2008 Indian drama film Fashion starring Priyanka Chopra. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
I am listing the issues i have encountered after a thorough read and am expecting the nominator to rectify the following issues or give a valid explanation within a reasonable period of time.
- The film features Priyanka Chopra as Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model and her transformation from small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry — consider rephrasing it as The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Priyanka Chopra from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry. And, i don't think so it stops there. Rise, fall and rise. Isn't it?
- Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Music director has been credited. What about the rest of the relevant technical team like the director of photography, editor and lyricist(s)?
- ...to positive reception — from whom? if critics, please change it to critical acclaim.
- ...collected ₹600 million (US$9.4 million) — Is that gross figure? If yes, please changed it to "grossed" as Nett and Share are collected in general.
- was noted for being commercially successful despite being a women-centric film with no male lead — I think, no male-lead is not that necessary. The statement can be rewritten as was noted as one of the commercially successful women-centric films in India IMHO.
- Well, a similar line is use in Chopra's page and her filmography. Also, it was the first box-office hit featuring a female lead in a long time. So there should not be any problem.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add the ALT text for the image of Chopra in the lead section.
- Nineteen references in total and eight of them have issues (one of them is dead). I request the nominator to archive all the references to prevent link rotting.
- Added ALT and replaced those dead links, I have archived all the sources and will add when I have time.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is iDiva a reliable source?
- Yes, it's a part of The Times of India.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Owners of the website, does not establish that an individual is notable or reliable. Please state how this site meets GNG, do other RS sites cite it? Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why the ones "Golden Trident Awards", "Cine Blitz Awards" and "Lions Gold Awards" are given priority over National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, Screen Awards etc.? Those three don't even have articles here and since the chronological order is not followed, i suggest the nominator to place the ones with articles existing on the top and the other ones down, though the list is sortable.
I hereby request the nominator to ping me after all the issues have been addressed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pavanjandhyala: Done. Thanks for the comments.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where done? The last adjustment hasn't been made yet. And, i hope you shall archive all the references soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All the awards were placed alphabetically and Yes i will add them ASAP.—Prashant 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
- "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur played by Chopra, an aspiring fashion model from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry." — Can be rephrased as "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Chopra, from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry."
That's about it from me. Really good work on the article, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ssven2: Done. Thanks.—Prashant 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No major issues found from my perspective.
- I checked the article, and it is all fine; it has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Cannot state critical acclaim by using two reviews especially as one is by Taran Adarsh. It is a NPOV issue.
Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from West Virginian
Prashant!, I have a few comments and suggestions for you regarding this list. Great job overall! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of the lede should probably have an inline citation for the film's direction by Bhandarkar and its production by UTV Motion Pictures. Strangely enough, the article for Fashion fails to specifically mention that the film was produced by UTV Motion Pictures in its prose, and only lists that it was distributed by the company in its info box. All content in the lede should be backed up by inline citations to verifiable references, even well known or obvious statements like these.
- "Produced on a budget..." may sound more formal than "Made on a budget..." This is merely a suggestion.
- The lede should probably also mention that this is specifically a Bollywood film.
- The image of Chopra is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list.
- Done. But, i think it is better to call it an Indian film. It's not a problem. And, thanks for your inputs.—Prashant 07:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Prashant!, the film could be referred to as both in the lede (perhaps in different places), stating that it is an Indian film of Bollywood production, to distinguish it from Tamil cinema and Telugu cinema for example. This, however, is merely a suggestion and it is not a deal breaker. Following my re-review of your list, I find that it definitely meets all aspects laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and I hereby share my support for its promotion to FL. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 01:59, 17 August 2015 (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 PresN 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [22].[reply]
- Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive history and list of the tallest high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. The introduction is a bit shorter than that of the list for New York City, but this can be forgiven as this merely deals with the sole borough of Brooklyn. Any comments, guidance, and assistance to make this a Featured List is appreciated and welcomed! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to reviewers (because it was the first question I had when I saw this nomination): You'd think that this list would be a subset of List of tallest buildings in New York City and thus a content fork, but as that list only has buildings higher than 600 feet, and the tallest building in Brooklyn is 590 feet, there is 0% overlap. --PresN 03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks like a good list. Here are my few suggestions:
- I would remove "proposed" buildings, as this is a list of tallest buildings, not potential tallest buildings that might be built (running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL).
- Mattximus, first and foremost, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review this list and provide thoughtful feedback! I will address each comment one by one. Please let me know if you have any further questions in the meantime. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, a list of proposed high-rise buildings is not uncommon in Featured Lists of tallest buildings: List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings in Chicago, etc. Per your guidance, I've removed it. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The second last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, maybe you could make clear the present ranking of the building in terms of height to help the reader keep track? Otherwise the last sentence "The borough's fourth-tallest" comes out of nowhere (why 4th, what about the other 3?).
- Mattximus, I've clarified that The Brooklyner and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower are the second and third-tallest buildings in the borough per your suggestion. Please let me know if this current configuration works! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A thumbnail image of 388 Bridge Street would look good to the right of the lead, as it is the tallest building in Brooklyn.
- Mattximus, I concur with this idea, however, a decent free image of 388 Bridge Street is not yet available on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not in New York at the moment to take a photo. I'm currently working on acquiring one as we speak, but this change may not happen within the timeline of this review. -- West Virginian (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list ranks completed and topped out Brooklyn skyscrapers" is an old way of writing that is no longer considered good form for featured lists. It could be changed to "There are 32 completed or topped out skyscrapers in Brooklyn..."
- Mattximus, this has been changed per your suggestion. Let me know if it works in its new form. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." could be deleted and your column could be changed to "year completed".
- Mattximus, thank you for this suggestion. I've removed the sentence, and added "completed" to the column header. -- West Virginian (talk)
- City Point Tower II is indicated to be under construction, but is not in the under construction table. This should be made clear.
- Mattximus, thank you for the catch! I've entered City Point Tower II in the under construction section, as it is still under construction. It was also remain in the main list, since it has been topped out. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For this one, I don't think it's necessary to have it in both tables. I would just keep it where it was in the big table and just have a footnote stating "topped out but still under construction" or something like that. Will continue my review later, but it overall looks good.
- Mattximus, it is commonplace in other Featured Lists of tall buildings to twice-mention a building that is under construction and topped out: once in the list of completed buildings so that the reader can see the building has successfully reached its planned height, and once in the under construction list since the building is still technically eligible for listing there due to its incomplete status. Again, I am flexible with this and if need be, could include a footnote instead. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think having it once in the main list is fine, however I won't oppose the nomination on this little point. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings" I think this is redundant and not needed.
- Mattximus, I've removed the equal signs per your suggestion. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not remove equal sign, they are very important! You just don't need to say equal signs mean equal in the paragraph, it's tautological.
- "An asterisk (*) indicates that the building is still under construction, but has been topped out." This could be done as a footnote as is done in many tables.
- Mattximus, I've added a footnote and have included this statement under an "Explanatory notes" subsection. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall a very good article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Made a few changes myself, let me know if they are acceptable.
- Close to support but a few little points:
- You mention that there are 32 buildings over 300 feet, but I count 29? You will need a citation for that number, but one of the pages already cited probably has that number in it, just need to add the citation where I put the tags.
Support if these little changes are made. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, I've recounted and there are 32 buildings. That two pairs of buildings that are the same height, and are therefore, tied. I had removed the equal signs per your request. I've added an inline citation to the Emporis website that lists all the completed buildings. I've also taken City Point Tower II out of the under construction list per your request. It is now listed in the main list only, with an asterisk illustrating that it has been topped out. Thank you for all your guidance and support throughout this process, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve the overall quality of this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, just one thing, please return the equal signs as per my explanation above. I guess you counted buildings that are 297 feet as being "over 300", that's where my number discrepancy came from. But it's close enough so I won't quibble over that one. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, I sincerely apologize for my oversight, the list covers buildings at a height of or over 295 feet (90 m). 90 meters was the benchmark here, to be more inclusive since some buildings hover just under 300 ft. I've re-added the equal signs. Take another look and let me know what you think! Also, thank you for your edits and additions, they are greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks very good. Just caught a little one: "This measurement includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts", the citation doesn't include this information, can it be found somewhere on that site (specifically, where did you get this definition for height)? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, the specific height for each building was pulled from the individual pages. The heights used here use the architectural heights, and not the heights of antenna masts, but this information can only be gleaned from the individual pages. Any suggestions as how to best illustrate this point? -- West Virginian (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This kind of refutes one of Mattximus's points above, but the articles "List of tallest buildings in New York City" and "List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington", both featured lists, does indeed have a "Tallest proposed buildings" section. Provided that these buildings are definitely in the final planning stages and not just one developer's vision for a supertall skyscraper (which would then be violating this policy), a table of proposed builginds can be added to the article.
Also, a consistent reference format is needed; you should use either almost all {{sfn}} (or a variant like {{harvnb}}) or almost all expanded citations like {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Epic Genius, per your point, I have reinstated the list of proposed buildings. None of the buildings mentioned are considered visions, and all are slated to begin construction within the next two years. If any of the buildings should become stale proposals, or be cancelled, they will of course be removed. Regarding the sources, it is a common practice to use harvnb format for sources from published books with multiple pages referenced, and to use cite web and cite newspaper for websites and newspaper articles without page numbers. I admit that it does look a bit strange with the two being used side by side. I could repeat the cite book each time with the new page number, but it could become quite cluttered in the citations section. Cogitate on that and let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and for your guidance on the list provided thus far! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree with this statement from Epic Genius. A while back I went through many of the featured tallest buildings list, and in nearly every case the "proposed buildings" were almost all never built, with old links from many years ago proclaiming how great this building is going to be. Based on these experiences, I don't believe any of these lists should have speculative proposed buildings. It is not encyclopedic to report on non-buildings. No other (largest/longest lists etc.) have speculative potential entries in their lists. I've tried to remove them from all previous featured lists and met with no resistance (since almost all those proposed buildings were cancelled many years ago when these articles were promoted anyway). The only exception is if the building is actually under construction then we have at least a physical thing to put on this list. Speculative potential ones could end up in an architect's dusty cabinet even if "approved". Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattximus, I've removed the proposed list pending consensus on the subject. The list can stand alone without the list of proposed buildings. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is best, thanks for making the change, when the buildings are built then they can be added to the list without problem, there is no need to predict the future. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is fine as well. Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Epicgenius, did you have any further guidance or comments regarding my responses above? I wanted to ensure that I addressed all your concerns. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @West Virginian: Besides the (minor) issue of standardized references, no. Epic Genius (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Epicgenius I've modified the references per your recommendation. Please take a look and let me know if you see any other impediments. Thank you again for taking the time to review this list for FL! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @West Virginian: Thank you for your hard work on this article. I am happy to support this nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie |
---|
...
Good work overall. -- Frankie talk 09:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – good work. Any chance you could look at this? -- Frankie talk 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Frankie: Forbidding MOS, I don't see why else "New York City" shouldn't be linked. It's a pretty relevant link, and one doesn't need to click through the "Brooklyn" wikilink to get to the NYC page. Might be my personal preference, but I'm just stating that this would be a pretty obvious choice of wikilinks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thanks for your concern. However, I had based my query on WP:OVERLINK, which states "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]", but seeing this article, which is related to NYC, I think there shouldn't be any problem of overlinking (if it's wiki-linked). -- Frankie talk 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Epicgenius and FrB.TG, thank you both for your support first and foremost! My personal reading of Wikipedia's "overlinking" guidelines is this: linking a place name of a major geographical location is only "overlinking" if you link say New York City for a birthplace mention, place of business mention, or some other secondary or tertiary mention. This is a list of high-rises in a borough of New York City, so it wouldn't hurt if it was linked in this context as these buildings are in New York City. However, I am in agreement with both sides. I would like a solution to be agreed upon by both of you so that this list is free of controversy and can be promoted. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I suppose in this scenario, "New York City" can be linked once, but not "New York" or "United States", as these two linkages go against WP:OVERLINK. Epic Genius (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. -- Frankie talk 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Epicgenius and FrB.TG: Alright, then it is settled! I've re-wiki-linked New York City in the lists's lede. Thank you all for your guidance and support for this list! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Well-written, and properly sourced. West Virginian Well done.Krish | Talk 07:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
- I'm not seeing an image until I use the page down button, consider an image (maybe the tallest building in Brooklyn) for the main image to situate next to the right of the lead.
Brooklyn /ˈbrʊklɪn/
→Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/)
- Per WP:LEAD#Citations, you can remove citations for things later repeated in the article. EG, you can remove ref #2 from
which rises 590 feet (180 m) and was opened in 2014.[2]
as it's repeated in the table lower down the page. Do the same for any other applicable lead citations. - Consider moving references in tables to a Ref column.
- Any refs which publisher ends in .com → |website= as opposed to |publisher=
Alls I spotted, a good list! Azealia911 talk 22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Azealia911, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I appreciate your guidance and feedback. As there are no decent images of Brooklyn's tallest and second-tallest high-rise buildings, Epicgenius has added an image of the third-tallest high-rise taken from Atlantic Terminal. Under the history section, I added an image of what is considered Brooklyn's "first skyscraper" as it is mentioned in the prose. I also incorporated
Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/)
into the lede. I also removed the original reference two and three other references similar to it that are mentioned below in the list. As for the reference column, I had originally had one but a previous user recommended I remove it, so I've done so. I've also changed all the instances of "|publisher=" for the Emporis.com sources to "|website=." Please take another look and let me know if I've missed anything. Once again, thank you so much for the review and thoughtful comments and suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Azealia911: Let me know if you have any outstanding questions or concerns regarding this article. Once again, thank you for your review and feedback! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Azealia911, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I appreciate your guidance and feedback. As there are no decent images of Brooklyn's tallest and second-tallest high-rise buildings, Epicgenius has added an image of the third-tallest high-rise taken from Atlantic Terminal. Under the history section, I added an image of what is considered Brooklyn's "first skyscraper" as it is mentioned in the prose. I also incorporated
- Support All comments have been addressed! Azealia911 talk 20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Azealia911, thank you tremendously for the review and for your support! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose sorry to be so late....
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The Rambling Man, thank you again for the review sir! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Passed. Remember to review other nominations so that the FLC process will run faster next time you nominate, and consider submitting this list to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions! --PresN 17:08, 5 September 2015 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 00:37, 26 August 2015 [23].
- Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A team that existed for less than 25 years is already taking a year-long break. UAB is one of several infant teams of college football, and is now the poster child for getting money out of college sports. During the program's short existence, it has produced twelve players who have been drafted into the NFL, and surprisingly, has two first-round picks. While only one player has had a long-lasting and successful career in the NFL, UAB still has done a better job producing players than several older schools. And I actually am neither a supporter or detractor of UAB. This was a spur-of-the-moment expansion by me, and most of the tedious, repetitive stat work on this list goes to User:Patriarca12. This will hopefully be followed by another list or two about UAB football. Thanks to everyone (anyone?) who reviews, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 05:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This list has twelve occupants... why can't you merge this to UAB Blazers football? Seattle (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Fails 3b "In length and/or topic, it...does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." I see absolutely no reason why this cannot be incorporated into UAB Blazers football, which already contains a table with 7 of the 12 players that are in the candidate article. Besides that, the key section is unnecessary, the references are not complete and not properly formatted, and the fourth paragraph of the lead is unnecessary. AHeneen (talk) 09:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the unofficial rule is that ten items is necessary for notability. UAB Blazers football right now is a mess that I hope to fix soon. The list of seven will eventually become a paragraph or two that incorporates all twelve people at this list. When the article is properly finished, having this list there will give undue weight to this topic. I don't think the key is unnecessary. It provides purpose and is standard for these type of lists. And although the referencing is not like my usual over-the-top detail, I tried to keep it like other formatting for UAB articles, which has previously been found to be fine. If you could point out something that you think is improperly formatted, I'll be glad to fix it. And I agree that I went overboard in the fourth paragraph, although it is not entirely unnecessary. I'll shorten it and add it to another one. Thanks for the comments, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any evidence of this unofficial rule? Even if it is a guideline supported by a WikiProject, it must still comply with Wikipedia content guidelines. The UAB football article is just 11kB and could be significantly expanded without the need for a separate list article for NFL players (see WP:SIZERULE). The list article is just 1.8kB! It can easily be integrated into the UAB football article without any problems.
- The key has far more items than are used in the table. It should also not be in a separate section. The terms "general" and "specific" for the references are unusual. I see now that it is supposed to be short citations, but the "specific" references should be before the general references. However, the formatting is not as much of a concern as the length is. AHeneen (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the unofficial rule is that ten items is necessary for notability. UAB Blazers football right now is a mess that I hope to fix soon. The list of seven will eventually become a paragraph or two that incorporates all twelve people at this list. When the article is properly finished, having this list there will give undue weight to this topic. I don't think the key is unnecessary. It provides purpose and is standard for these type of lists. And although the referencing is not like my usual over-the-top detail, I tried to keep it like other formatting for UAB articles, which has previously been found to be fine. If you could point out something that you think is improperly formatted, I'll be glad to fix it. And I agree that I went overboard in the fourth paragraph, although it is not entirely unnecessary. I'll shorten it and add it to another one. Thanks for the comments, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 17:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2015 (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 SchroCat 10:14, 7 August 2015 [24].
- Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the last of a three-part series including List of York City F.C. players (featured since October 2007) and List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances) (featured since March 2015). I am working on reducing the number of red links, although I feel criterion 5a is met as it is. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
"Comments'
|
- Support Fantastic work, well done. NapHit (talk) 11:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The one thing that jumped out at me was the Players with 25 or more appearances section, which is basically just a hatnote to other articles. Since links to the other pages are included in the templates at the bottom of the page, I'm not sure we need a blank section for them. If you feel that they are important enough to highlight, perhaps they should be at the top of the page. Otherwise, the list looked strong to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I placed the links to the other lists there as I thought readers would find them useful upon finishing reading the list. However, I wouldn't oppose them being moved to the top of the page if you feel it is more practical. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no issues jump out at me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment. The format for these lists is well established now, the second part of the York City trilogy passed FLC quite recently, and this list follows that one pretty closely, so I expect to support. There are a couple of things...
|
- Support. As stated above under the yellow stripe, I expected to support, and nominator responded to my comments in a very timely manner, which is more than can be said for my belated return to this FLC. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - feels this satisfies the criteria based on prose and structure alone. Couldn't find any issues with references. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2015 (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 00:10, 27 July 2015[25]
- Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Audrey Hepburn was one of the most iconic actresses of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Hepburn is known for her roles as a runaway princess in Roman Holiday, a café society girl in Breakfast at Tiffany's, a Cockney flower girl named Eliza Doolittle in the musical film My Fair Lady as well as the titular characters in the plays Gigi, and Ondine. This list provides a comprehensive overview of her film, television, and stage career. As usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jimknut
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Although the article's title is "Audrey Hepburn on screen and stage" her television work is also included. Shouldn't the title be "Audrey Hepburn on screen, television and stage"?
Introduction
Film
Television
Stage
That's all for now! Jimknut (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great filmography list once again.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Birdienest81: Thanks for the support. I shall look at your list when I can. Cowlibob (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Image Review - All images are properly licensed on Commons, well placed in the article and appropriately captioned. Nice job on the tables layout. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66: Thanks for the review and support! Cowlibob (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:29, 27 July 2015 (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 PresN 17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2010 Pacific hurricane season featured the fewest number of named storms on record in the eastern portion of the basin. Despite its inactivity, two storms were particularly devastating in Central America and Mexico: Tropical Storm Agatha and Tropical Depression Eleven-E. This list covers the status changes (such as formation, dissipation, category upgrade/downgrade, etc.) of the season's 13 tropical cyclones based on the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center's post-storm reports. The format is based on previous featured hurricane timelines and this particular article should match FLC standards. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. - did this happen? Afiak, no new storms were added. Otherwise, I love the format, and with clarification, I'm happy to support. Definitely one of the better hurricane season timelines on Wikipedia. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the generic line to mention the subtropical phase of Omeka, which wasn't warned on operationally. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support then! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Dudley
- Support. A first rate list. One minor comment.
- "These dates typically limit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the eastern Pacific basin." "limit" does not sound right in this context. Should it be "cover"?
- Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from West Virginian
- Cyclonebiskit, this list's lede meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and the list meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The first image is released into the public domain, the second image is licensed CC BY 2.0, and the third through eighth images are released into the public domain, so all are acceptable for use here. I only have one suggestion, and that is all eight images will require "alt" captions explaining the contents of the images, in addition to the standard caption. (See: Timeline of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season). I have no other comments, questions, or suggestions, and find that this article is in keeping with other featured lists of hurricane season timelines. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Cyclonebiskit, I hereby support this article for FL status now that Maile66 addressed my lone concern. Overall, a great list! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - West Virginian, I added the alt text to the images, which now number 10, to help move this along. I'm adding my support, as I feel this is a well-done list. Would appreciate if anyone has time and can comment on my nomination here. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for covering that! I honestly forgot this was still up at FLC, and my apologies to West Virginian for missing your comments. Thank you both for the supports :) Fair enough for me to return the favor, Maile. I'll take a look at your nomination shortly. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Closing this nomination as Passed. Remember to review other nominations so that the FLC process will run faster next time you nominate, and consider submitting this list to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions! --PresN 17:08, 5 September 2015 (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 00:10, 27 July 2015[27]
- Nominator(s): Another Believer, FrB.TG 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In February 2009, this list was recognized as a featured list, only to be demoted a few months later. After that, the list went through several expansions; however, it never happened to be an FL. After a fair amount of work on List of awards and nominations received by Adele, a 10-time Grammy Award winner, and also the winner of an Academy Award, I and Another Believer reckon we are close to FL status. We promise to fix concerns as quickly as possible. Cheers to all reviewers. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT and Another Believer (Talk) 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nominator. Frankie talk 10:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the FLC nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift is still open, FrB.TG. Are you sure it's okay for you to start another nomination before that one closes? Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well SNUGGUMS the list's got four supports (including yours), so it's okay to have another nomination open at least according to FLC Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Anyways thanks for noting it. :) -- Frankie talk 17:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just making sure. As for this article itself, I support and can't find any issues in it. Kudos to both you and Another Believer. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for another one! <3 Frankie talk 17:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from — Calvin999
- Shouldn't the name of this article be List of nominations and awards received by Adele? Because, technically, you receive a nomination before you win an award. Just seems a bit odd.
- The list's title is consistent with similar lists (see Category:Lists of awards by musician). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's consistent, but it just seems really odd. Because you have to be nominated in order to (maybe) win the award. — Calvin999 17:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If this discussion is to be continued, I think we should move it to Wikipedia:Featured lists or another venue, because it is not specific to this list of FL nomination. Personally, I am not bothered by the naming convention, but I see your point. Perhaps it is alphabetical (awards, nominations)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see your point, Calvin, and kinda agree with you, but as AB said maybe it's in alphabetical order. It might also be because of the preference of awards over nominations. I have seen articles giving awards more importance (in terms of mentioning) e.g. if an actress has received one Oscars out of five nominations they don't say that she was nominated for five Oscars, and won once, but one Oscars from five nominations. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If this discussion is to be continued, I think we should move it to Wikipedia:Featured lists or another venue, because it is not specific to this list of FL nomination. Personally, I am not bothered by the naming convention, but I see your point. Perhaps it is alphabetical (awards, nominations)? ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's consistent, but it just seems really odd. Because you have to be nominated in order to (maybe) win the award. — Calvin999 17:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list's title is consistent with similar lists (see Category:Lists of awards by musician). ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She is the recipient of an Academy Award, a Golden Globe Award, 10 Grammy Awards, 13 Billboard Music Awards, and 4 awards each from the American Music and Brit award ceremonies. → Considering she is a British artist, I feel like emphasis should be placed on the British awards first, not the American. It's quite US centric, and the BRIT Awards is mentioned last in this sentence.
- The song won the Academy Award, Critics' Choice Award and Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song, and a Grammy Award for Best Song Written for Visual Media. → Again, it won British Single of the Year, but this isn't included. As she is British, I'd like to see it included first.
- An MBE isn't really an award, per se. It's an honour bestowed on someone and is apart of their title in the United Kingdom. I'm not really conformable with it being included in the lead and table. And I'm really uncomfortable with the MBE table saying "Result - Won", it's not like an awards ceremony whereby only one of five nominees can win.
- Added a footnote. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the footnote? Also, it now says she got an OBE, but she didn't. She got an MBE. I don't think list is should include any mention of the honour. For me, it just doesn't fit. — Calvin999 11:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a footnote in the table; however, I removed that table. Anyway, I have removed the honor as it can be found in her biography. -- Frankie talk 12:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the footnote? Also, it now says she got an OBE, but she didn't. She got an MBE. I don't think list is should include any mention of the honour. For me, it just doesn't fit. — Calvin999 11:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a footnote. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- to have won all four of the General Field ("Big four") → What are the big four?
- Done. ---Another Believer (Talk)
- It's slightly ambiguous. It implies, I believe, that she won all four in the same night? Or do you mean that over the course of her career, she is only the second artist to have won all four? — Calvin999 17:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ---Another Believer (Talk)
- Ref 2: BBC News needs linking, first time.
- Done. ---Another Believer (Talk)
Aside from my comments, I think this is a fantastic list. — Calvin999 16:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Calvin999. I have resolved your remaining concerns. -- Frankie talk 19:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cassianto
|
---|
Comments from CassiantoIn terms of comprehensiveness, this article is up there with the best of them. The illustrations are good, and the prose,
AIM Independent Music Awards
ARIA Music Awards
Teen Choice Awards
|
Support -- CassiantoTalk 08:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Cassianto. All sorted now; however, I am not an expert in that American-British thing. If you spot any other American word, feel free to change or mention it here. -- Frankie talk 09:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, and I even learnt something there; I had no idea "Notes" was an American usage, with References being British. Oh, I copy edited the OBE line a little. For future, this is how it should be described. Could you elaborate as to which list she appeared in? I left a brief tag. CassiantoTalk 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I think this was also @Calvin999:'s concern, which has now been resolved. -- Frankie talk 10:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, and I even learnt something there; I had no idea "Notes" was an American usage, with References being British. Oh, I copy edited the OBE line a little. For future, this is how it should be described. Could you elaborate as to which list she appeared in? I left a brief tag. CassiantoTalk 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think you could use one box for the Oye! and Mercury Prize since its the same award, like you did on the Glamour Awards. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jaespinoza. I have followed your suggestion. -- Frankie talk 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Littlecarmen
The list looks great otherwise! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Great list! Littlecarmen (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, NapHit and Little. :) -- Frankie talk 14:08, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 27 July 2015 (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 00:10, 27 July 2015[28]
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for featured list because I have worked on the list for several weeks to comply with Featured list standards. I strongly believe that this list has a potential to become a featured list. I followed closely to how the Academy Award for Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actor lists and the Daytime Emmy Award acting lists were formatted. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
|
- A Support from me for putting up with all my crap. Cheers. -- Frankie talk 19:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good to me. Well done, once again. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Littlecarmen
These are just small corrections though. The list looks very good otherwise. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I see no more issues with this list. Littlecarmen (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This list is flawless. Impressive work, Birdie.—Prashant 08:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 27 July 2015 (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 Giants2008 00:10, 27 July 2015[29]
- Nominator(s): Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tabu is perhaps the one Bollywood actress whose filmography is diverse to the extent of being strange. On one hand, she played the Lady Macbeth character in the brilliant Maqbool and on the other, she played a woman who is raped by a ghost in Hawa. She played the seductive bar dancer in the gritty Chandni Bar and also the coy wife in the regressive melodrama Hum Saath-Saath Hain. Superstar or not, she is the bravest Hindi film heroine from the 1990s. Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
Tabu is "the bravest Hindi film heroine from the 1990s" — agree. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 15:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Everything looks up to par. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 10:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*After appearing in a series... This sentence can surely be combined in some way with the next sentence. Something about a career turnaround.
That's all for now. Cowlibob (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from SNUGGUMS
- Pretty good work, Krimuk. My only concern is whether "Idlebrain.com" is a reliable source. It seems dubious. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Snuggums. Yep, Idlebrain.com is covered by a notable third-party source here and here, so it does seem to meet the reliability criteria. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have reasonable credentials, so I'll support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to have reasonable credentials, so I'll support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Snuggums. Yep, Idlebrain.com is covered by a notable third-party source here and here, so it does seem to meet the reliability criteria. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Birdienest81
- Support: Looks very informative and organized. I may leave a comment if I find an error, but I don't want to repeat any other mistakes pointed out by the previous reviewers.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Birdienest. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
Accepted that Idlebrain is a is a leading publisher for Telugu films. But i suggest you to replace a few references with the following ones which are better RS.
- Faction frictions by The Hindu for number 86.
- Replaced.
- Gripping, but no shock value by The Hindu for number 100
- Replaced.
- KRR taught Tabu to give sexy expressions in a bedroom! (sounds absurd) by The Times of India for number 33 which actually is used as number 2. Another similar article from TOI is here for number 33.
- Yeah, but these refs don't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 33 does.
- Cut above the rest by The Tribune for number 41 which actually is used as number 4.
- Ref 4 just mentions the name of the film. Doesn't say that she had a special appearance in the film, nor does it mention the film's director, which ref no. 41 does.
- 'I want to be a free bird' by Rediff.com for number 51.
- This doesn't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 51 does.
- My favourite heroines: Nag by Sify for number 59.
- This doesn't mention her character name in the film, which ref no. 59 does.
- Is number 98 that necessary?
- Removed.
Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pavanjandhyala for the better references. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Pavanjandhyala for the better references. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 27 July 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [30].
- Nominator(s): MPJ -US 01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it hits all the marks for featured lists including an engaging lead, it is encompassing the subject, it is fully sourced with reliable sources, well written, it adheres to the list format for professional wrestling championships and the subject matter is definitely Feature List worthy as a number of professional wrestling championship lists are Featured Lists, including 12 articles I have previous led through the FL process. MPJ -US 01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well nevermind, plans are made, plans change so I will be here and ready to review & improve this list. MPJ -Viva Esfinge 20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "For the majority of its existence, it was featured by...." - not keen on the word "featured", maybe try "For the majority of its existence, it was defended in...."
- Done
- "NWA Mexico previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" should be "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles". Also, when did this occur?
- Made the change, researching if the sources mention when it was previously attempted to reclaim the championships
- Doing some research the best I could find was "in 2008" but that was on luchawiki, so that's not a reliable source. Most of what I found basically said "previously" so until I find something reliable to support it I guess the article stays the way it is? MPJ-US 11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I suggest that "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" be changed to "NWA Mexico had already tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles on a previous occasion" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated. MPJ-US 20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I suggest that "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" be changed to "NWA Mexico had already tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles on a previous occasion" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Forty-five wrestlers have shared 84 NWA Middleweight Championship reigns" - per WP:MOSNUM, either both should be in digits or both should be in words
- done, digits in both
- That's great, however the MOS says that a sentence shouldn't start with a digit, so maybe move "Since 1939" to the start of the sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- did not realize that, fixed. MPJ-US 20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, however the MOS says that a sentence shouldn't start with a digit, so maybe move "Since 1939" to the start of the sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- done, digits in both
- For some of the title changes on early Anniversary Shows, the location is given in the table as unknown, but our articles on the shows do give locations??
- That is a great catch, based on that I fixed the locations and applied the anniversary source to those reigns as well
- I researched and found a few more locations. I used the cagematch citation for the location specifically. Cagematch is listed as a reliable source for wrestling results on the Pro wrestling source page.
- "The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the title changed hands" - the word "respective" does not belong there
- Reworded
- "CMLL replaces the championship" - this is in the present tense, but all other notes are in the past tense
- Fixed tense
- To work with the "reigns by combined length" table, notes 6 and 7 and also 8 and 9 should indicate which reigns they refer to, eg "The exact date on which René Guajardo vacated the championship during his Nth reign is unknown"
- Fixed
- "For the majority of its existence, it was featured by...." - not keen on the word "featured", maybe try "For the majority of its existence, it was defended in...."
- Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the great feedback, I have looked at the article so many times I had gone blind to some of the details, looking at your feedback everything makes sense to me. MPJ-US 08:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support and more importantly your input to improve the article. MPJ-US 18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
- MPJ-DK, while the prose of your lede meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and your list meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I do have one suggestion. Do you have inline citations for the sentence "The NWA has not determined a champion since." and inline citations for the sentences in the fifth paragraph of your list's lede? The content of the fifth paragraph is sourced in the list below, but it should also be sourced in the prose. Thank you for your efforts to improve this list and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure how to source that something did NOT happen since there is no official NWA Mexico site. I can look for a recent article stating that there is no Middleweight champion but that may be hard to find specifically, but there are a few options i can look through. I have some year end Lucha magazines, maybe a 2014 recap magazine that usually list champions? Not being on that list could source that? And yes some of the statements in the 5th paragraph can be explicitly sourced, although longest, shortest and most reigns is a synthesis of ALL table listed sources and would be quite a long string of citations, but i could put a note in to refer to the table sources and explain it. I will work on that today. I will let yoh know when I am done. MPJ-US 12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support MPJ-DK, that is certainly not a deal breaker, especially since I too was unable to find a source that clearly stated that NWA had not determined a champion since 2010. Because the championship has not occurred since August 12, 2010, it could be assumed without even needing to state it that a champion has not been selected since. You could probably just omit the sentence entirely with that in mind. No need to source the fifth paragraph as those statements are gleaned from the prose below, which uses sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. I hereby support this list. Great job! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I took your suggestion on the sentence and just took it out. The list shows it and we are good. Thank you for your support. MPJ-US 15:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Not sure how it reads to a layman, but to me "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a Wrestle and Romance (WAR) match with Corazón de León" sounds like it's describing the type of match, not the promotion it was contested for. Perhaps the whole sentance could read: "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a match with Corazón de León for Wrestle and Romance (WAR) on November 8, 1994, in Korakuen Hall, after which he began promoting the title exclusively in Japan, holding it himself until vacating it in 1998."
- "Dragón signed with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and returned the championship to CMLL." - Was this freely given (as the wording implies) or did they buy it back given that he bought it originally?
- Given that it's a red link it might be worth a quick aside to explain if NWA Mexico is a sub-division of, or a similar entity to, "the" NWA.
- The timing of Dragon's first reign coincides with his famous J-Crown run; a quick glance at his article mentions that he held these belts separately--I don't think it's worth explaining why, but it might be worth pointing out that this wasn't one of the middle/cruiser/junior heavyweight belts that made the Crown up.
- On a technical level everything's fine and WP:ACCESS seems fully met, and with this being inactive it's nice to have a discrete list that can pretty much be called "finished". I'm already leaning to support as is but ping me if you implement or even just respond to the above suggestions. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grapple X: I have addressed issues 1, 3 and 4. For issue 2 I do not have any proof if CMLL paid for it or he just gave it back since he worked with CMLL whenever he was in Mexico and co-promoted shows with them. Thank you for your input and support. MPJ-US 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. Happy to support. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (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 SchroCat 10:12, 7 August 2015 [31].
- Nominator(s): Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I hope that a successful promotion would encourage other users to create or improve lists of amphibians (and other animals) by country. While the lists of mammals and birds generally cover most countries, the lists of amphibians and reptiles still cover only a limited number of countries. In my opinion it is surprising how little lists there are in that field despite the available information. Regards, Gligan (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A few minor comments.
I could not find the full citation for Biserkov 2007, and the introduction sentence "This is a complete list of the amphibians of Bulgaria" can be deleted, as it's no longer accepted form for featured lists (as it is rather redundant). Mattximus (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comments. I have changed the introduction of the list. However, I don't understand what exactly is missing in order to have full citation for Biserkov 2007. I hope you can help me with that issue. Here is a link to the book of Biserkov in PDF, if that could be helpful. Best, --Gligan (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by PresN
Alright, removing my delegate hat to review this list, as I'd like to see more lists like this as well. Comments:
- Okay, the only amphibian FL we have appears to be List of amphibians of Michigan, which has very different formatting than this one. At first glance, I'm on team Bulgaria- looks better visually
- That lead is short. It's barely a single paragraph- is there no other information from the article that could go up there? The Michigan list gives the idea of a map of Bulgaria, to start with. Maybe add a description of the regions of Bulgaria you discuss in the various species notes?
- I have expanded the lead. I will also add some information about the levels of precipitation but this would be in Wednesdays, when I get home.
- The background:Linen; is removing the up/down arrows from the column headers; replace them with background-color:Linen; and they pop right back up
- Done.
- You're missing row and column scopes; make the column headers scope="col" style="blah" to fix those, and make the first item of each row !scope="row"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris'' for the row scopes. Note that the row scopes change the formatting of the first column; to undo it add plainrowheaders as a class of the table (so class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders") and make the row !scope="row" style="background:#ffffff"| ''Lissotriton vulgaris''.
- Done. (hopefully I haven't messed up something)
- All your status links are redirecting, but that seems to be a problem with the template, not your list
- I have corrected the template.
- The distribution texts all have punctuation but most are not complete sentences- either make them all complete sentences with a period at the end, or drop the periods and make them all half-statements
- Done.
- Poor southern crested newt doesn't have an image- I assume you've looked for one?
- Indeed, I have looked for an image but unfortunately there is none in Commons.
- I like the way you tell the reader how many species/genera there are in general, as well as in Bulgaria
- And... that's it! A nice, short list that covers all the bases.
--PresN 01:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the suggestions and the positive comments :) I will take note of the discussion here and will extrapolate the recommendations to the List of reptiles of Bulgaria, which I intend to nominate once the current process is over. Regards, Gligan (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I did a copyedit on the new additions. 2 last things- ref 3 (First record of Triturus macedonicus (Karaman, 1922) (Amphibia: Salamandridae) in Bulgaria) - shouldn't this be cite journal, not cite book? If so, it needs a journal listed; if it is a book, it needs a publisher. Cite 5 (Ecoregions of Bulgaria") is also missing a publisher. --PresN 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Best regards,--Gligan (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, Support. --PresN 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of getting this list some more attention: consider reviewing some other lists at FLC to get people more inclined to review yours back, and maybe ask Mattximus if he's willing to do a full review. On that note- would you consider reviewing my World Fantasy Special Award—Professional down below? --PresN 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, Support. --PresN 20:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Best regards,--Gligan (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I did a copyedit on the new additions. 2 last things- ref 3 (First record of Triturus macedonicus (Karaman, 1922) (Amphibia: Salamandridae) in Bulgaria) - shouldn't this be cite journal, not cite book? If so, it needs a journal listed; if it is a book, it needs a publisher. Cite 5 (Ecoregions of Bulgaria") is also missing a publisher. --PresN 16:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the suggestions and the positive comments :) I will take note of the discussion here and will extrapolate the recommendations to the List of reptiles of Bulgaria, which I intend to nominate once the current process is over. Regards, Gligan (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Images Review -
- Bombina bombina needs Source and date in the Summary information
- File:Pelobates fuscus insubricus01.jpg needs date in the Summary informtion
- File:Teichfrosch.jpg needs Summary information
- File:Rana dalmatina01.jpg needs Summary information
- File:Benny Trapp Griechischer Frosch Rana graeca.jpg needs date in the Summary information
All the other images look good.— Maile (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well done list. — Maile (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Dudley
- "Geographic map of Bulgaria" Why not just Map of Bulgaria? What is an non-geographic map?
- A silly mistake of mine. What I meant was topographic map.
- "The foundations of the Bulgarian herpetology, or studies of amphibians and reptiles" I suggest "The foundations of Bulgarian herpetology, (the study of amphibians and reptiles)"
- Done.
- As all but one species are low concern, I would delete the status column and add a sentence at the end of the first paragraph saying that they are all least concern apart from the Macedonian Crested Newt which has not been evaluated.
- In my opinion all good-quality lists should a similar structure for all countries and a status column is a must (in general). Indeed, in the case of Bulgaria most amphibian species have the same status but that category is variable and the current status might change. My idea is to have uniform lists of vertebrate species of Bulgaria and that column would be needed there.
- A column for the genus would be far more useful.
- My thoughts on that suggestion: if we have a column for the genus, it should not have the same number of rows as the other columns because it is redundant to repeat the same word over and over again. However, if the number of rows differs, then the options to sort the species by Latin, common name or status will not work properly.
- I do not see the problem. You repeat the status and could equally well repeat the genus. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The status is repeated only because in that particular list the vast majority of species happen to have the same status. The genus on the other hand is already clearly visible in the Latin name and sorted alphabetically anyway. Generally, in the lists with tables I have seen so far there is no such column. In your opinion in what place should a column about the genus go in the table. Perhaps third, after the Latin and common name of the species? --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see the problem. You repeat the status and could equally well repeat the genus. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My thoughts on that suggestion: if we have a column for the genus, it should not have the same number of rows as the other columns because it is redundant to repeat the same word over and over again. However, if the number of rows differs, then the options to sort the species by Latin, common name or status will not work properly.
- "Only one genus, Hyla, is found in Europe, and one species occurs in Bulgaria.[" You might add the number of species in the genus.
- If we add the number of species there might be confusion whether that number includes all Hyla species or only those found in Europe. They are 37 and 6 species respectively. I am open for a suggestion how to add that information without complicating the sentence too much.
- How about "Hylidae or tree frogs are the most diverse amphibian family with 951 species in 51 genera, and worldwide distribution. Most species inhabit tropical areas with warm and humid climate, especially the Neotropics. Hylids range from small to large in size and usually have distinct adhesive toe discs that contain a cartilage offsetting the terminal phalanx, which aids in climbing. The only genus found in Europe is Hyla, with 6 species out of 37 worldwide, and one in Bulgaria." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "Hylidae or tree frogs are the most diverse amphibian family with 951 species in 51 genera, and worldwide distribution. Most species inhabit tropical areas with warm and humid climate, especially the Neotropics. Hylids range from small to large in size and usually have distinct adhesive toe discs that contain a cartilage offsetting the terminal phalanx, which aids in climbing. The only genus found in Europe is Hyla, with 6 species out of 37 worldwide, and one in Bulgaria." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If we add the number of species there might be confusion whether that number includes all Hyla species or only those found in Europe. They are 37 and 6 species respectively. I am open for a suggestion how to add that information without complicating the sentence too much.
- You have not formatted harvnb refs correctly. You need to add ref=harv to the sources.
- Done (hopefully) but please take a look at my formatting and correct it if needed.
- A first rate list. All my queries are minor apart from the lack of a genus column. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the comments. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point. Columns where sorting does not make sense, description and image, should be non-sortable. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Gligan (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point. Columns where sorting does not make sense, description and image, should be non-sortable. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the comments. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still think there should be a column for the genus, both for completeness and because it would allow a link to the genus which would be useful to some readers, but I leave it to you to decide. If you do put it in, it could go second or third. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for the support :) I would like to use this opportunity to encourage the people following this discussion to share their opinion on the issue regarding a column for the genus. Best, --Gligan (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (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 SchroCat 10:11, 7 August 2015 [32].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude, AssociateAffiliate
AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. I have an open FLC for List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC have been incorporated into this article too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
Burton upon Trent – Linked twice in lede- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"List A cricket since 1963[2]" – Move the ref to the end of the sentence.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You say "The club was established on 4 November 1870 and has played" but in another sentence say "Derbyshire have played first class".
- Sorted (hopefully) - in British English it is standard to use the singular when referring to the club as an off-the-field organisation, but plural when referring to the team of actual players on the field. Hope that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification! —Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted (hopefully) - in British English it is standard to use the singular when referring to the club as an off-the-field organisation, but plural when referring to the team of actual players on the field. Hope that makes sense...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the opening para must be sourced.- I would have thought it was self-evident from looking at the dates in the table...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more precise, I was referring to the last two parts of it. Also, the "Notes" section is currently unsourced. —Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still don't follow. DO you refer to the bit that says "....Highfield in Leek, which in 2013 hosted the most recent Derbyshire home game not to be played in either Derby or Chesterfield."? Well, that can be deduced by looking at the dates in the table, I don't think it needs separate sourcing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes are now sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "all of which are not actually located in Derbyshire, but in the adjoining county of Staffordshire." —Vensatry (ping) 06:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, opening paragraph - d'oh! For some reason I kept reading it as if you were talking about the whole lead. Ref added..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "all of which are not actually located in Derbyshire, but in the adjoining county of Staffordshire." —Vensatry (ping) 06:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes are now sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still don't follow. DO you refer to the bit that says "....Highfield in Leek, which in 2013 hosted the most recent Derbyshire home game not to be played in either Derby or Chesterfield."? Well, that can be deduced by looking at the dates in the table, I don't think it needs separate sourcing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To be more precise, I was referring to the last two parts of it. Also, the "Notes" section is currently unsourced. —Vensatry (ping) 19:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought it was self-evident from looking at the dates in the table...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The map in the source shows Burton as being in Staffordshire, but just to be on the safe side I've put in another ref too. Knypersley is part of Biddulph and does not have a separate WP article. Leek link fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Debut first-class cricket since 1871 is repeated twice in lede.- Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The table needs row and column scopes.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (ping) 19:13, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice work! —Vensatry (ping) 10:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No major issues leap out at me. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias and The Rambling Man: Can you have a look at this candidate? This shouldn't be closed due to lack of reviews. —Vensatry (ping) 07:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good to me. A couple of wrapping issues in the table I'd prefer to see fixed ("v Nottinghamshire" splits onto two lines on my browser for the Twenty20 column), but nothing major. Harrias talk 08:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Late to the party, but confidently supporting. Plainly meets the FL criteria. I am obliged to The Rambling Man for shaking the bucket for this benefit, which I'd otherwise have missed. This is good work, and I'm happy to support. Off now to look at Warwickshire. Tim riley talk 21:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat 11:16, 31 July 2015 [33].
- Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after failing at its first FLC, this list has gone through a PR and now I feel meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
|
- Support – Per my resolved comments here and at its peer review. I have done some tweaks and copyedits through these revisions. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 21:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks much better than the one during its first FLC. Hope it passes this time. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks good. Deniroish (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins please note that Deniroish is a confirmed sock of the nominator. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and since this was from the nominator himself, this support should not be considered valid. -- FrankBoy CHITCHAT 09:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins please note that Deniroish is a confirmed sock of the nominator. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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. - Procedural withdrawal: nominator used a sock account to game the system and add a support !vote - SchroCat (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2015 (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 SchroCat 08:12, 3 August 2015 [34].
- Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The list is modeled after articles of related award categories such as the Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Album of the Year and the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album, both which are listed as FL. The Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year was an honor that was presented annually at the Billboard Latin Music Awards, a ceremony which honors "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music, as determined by the actual sales, radio airplay, streaming and social data that informs Billboard's weekly charts." According to Billboard magazine, the category was "created in response to the growing number of charting titles from the genre" of reggaeton. Regards, DivaKnockouts 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Erick
- Please explain why the award category was discontinued. I presume it was because it was later replaced by the "Latin Rhythm Album of the Year" award, but the article doesn't explain why Billboard hasn't given the award since 2008. You also need to include the category Awards disestablished in 2008. Also use the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} to have Billboard italicized on the article title. I'll check for more later. Erick (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate note: if you must use subsections, they need to be at least a level 4, or they pop out onto the main FLC page.--PresN 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Erick. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. — DivaKnockouts 16:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not responding, I've been having health problems. Anyways, the source doesn't exactly say that the "Rhythm Album of the Year" replaces "Reggaeton Album of the Year". Is it possible that "Reggaeton Album of the Year" may have been renamed to Latin Rhythm Album of the Year? Erick (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No no, you're fine! I hope everything is going better. Hmm, I tried finding a source that stated that, but failed. And well, if it was renamed, it wouldn't be considered a new category right? I'll look again. — DivaKnockouts 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much else to say so Support. Erick (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No no, you're fine! I hope everything is going better. Hmm, I tried finding a source that stated that, but failed. And well, if it was renamed, it wouldn't be considered a new category right? I'll look again. — DivaKnockouts 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AJona1992
- "the most popular albums, songs, and performers in Latin music" - shouldn't it be reggaeton instead of Latin music in general since we are talking about reggaeton?
- In this sentence, it's talking about the Billboard Latin Music Awards ceremony itself, not the award category.
- What is reggaeton? Maybe a brief sentence that talks about its origins or influences would suffice. Best, jona(talk) 20:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for your comments! — DivaKnockouts 21:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I now support the article's promotion to FL. Congrats, jona(talk) 16:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Wikipedian Penguin
Resolved comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
I copyedited the lead (see diff) as there was some repetition, redundancy and incorrect grammar. If I did something wrong, feel free to undo, or if you disagree with one of my changes, feel free to discuss. A few notes:
|
Support—nicely done, DivaKnockouts. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much :) — DivaKnockouts 15:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Azealia911
Body
- Add Daddy Yankee and Don Omar to the "Most nominations" in the infobox, I assume it's how many times an artist is nominated, not how many times they're nominated without winning.
- Done
- Add a "| year2 = 2008" parameter to the infobox.
- Done
- Similarly to how you did for the Ref. column, you can Abbr the notes into the other column titles as they're not too long, EG "{{Abbr|Nominees|The name of the performer and the nominated album.}}"
- Is this required?
- No of course not, a simple suggestion, entirely up to you.
- Make the Nationality column unsortable, it's redundant considering they all display the same thing.
- Done
- {{Reflist|2}} → {{Reflist|30em}} as it's more browser friendly.
- Done
References
- Considering the article is reporting an American topic, the dates should really all be MDY, not DMY.
- Done
- Link Billboard in ref 1, unlink it everywhere else, the same with Prometheus Global Media.
- Done
Think that's everything I got! Azealia911 talk 12:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments! — DivaKnockouts 02:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per all my comments being addressed, I am giving my Support to this, a good list. Azealia911 talk 14:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2015 (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 SchroCat 10:10, 7 August 2015 [35].
- Nominator(s): - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ray is considered as one of the great filmmakers of all time and he has won numerous awards for his films and honors for himself. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies FL criteria. Looking forward to constructive criticism.
- Note: Sorry to say this but bad-faith Indian editors...please stay away. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from FrB.TG
|
- Support — FrankBoy CHITCHAT 17:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks much FrB.TG for the review and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - DoDung2001 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work :). --Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) |
---|
Every award has nominations; it's just some ceremonies don't disclose it. In case of NFAs, they have something called "shortlists" in the final round. The winner will be decided from the shortlist, which is made available to the press these days. I agree we cannot consider the all those "contenders" as nominees, but the winner certainly is. Also the BFJA awards have nominations, but you've not considered that. —Vensatry (ping) 11:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize you removed the official citation? For this thing, I wish to have the opinion of the nominator. —Vensatry (ping) 14:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (ping) 18:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support on comprehensiveness. Looks much better now —Vensatry (ping) 11:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 19:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments
- A dead link and a few missing access dates Please rectify them.
- ...received critical acclaim and was awarded the Best Film prize at various award ceremonies and film festivals — i think prize can be replaced with award.
- Ssven2 made the change on my behalf. :)
- ...and two awards for writing lyrics — and two awards for lyric-writing.
- Done
- Looks like the list has been written with focus. I see a few redlinks though. Any reason behind this?
- I think red links are ok with FLs and would encourage editors to create new articles.
I hereby request the nominator to ping me once all these issues are addressed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pavanjandhyala: Thanks for the review. I have made changes per your request. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven references do not have accessdates. Any explanation regarding this? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to ref no. 9, 20, 23, 109? These refer to a book so accessdates are not needed. Please let me know if you are referring to any/something else. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all from me then. Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review comments and support. - Vivvt (Talk) 12:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's all from me then. Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you referring to ref no. 9, 20, 23, 109? These refer to a book so accessdates are not needed. Please let me know if you are referring to any/something else. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven references do not have accessdates. Any explanation regarding this? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pavanjandhyala: Thanks for the review. I have made changes per your request. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Vensatry, do you consider your issues addressed? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
Supprort - Nice work on the article, Vivvt. One minor comment,
- "The film was critical acclaimed" — Typo. Can also change to "The film received critical acclaim".
- Done Thanks for the support. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2015 (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 PresN 20:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC) [43].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A list of census designated places (CDPs) in West Virginia; some CDPs show past prosperity, but current economic emaciation. Seattle (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lead needs a good copy edit as there are lots of passive sentences in a row. For example the first sentence could be written more actively as follows: "The United States Census Bureau separates places by incorporation for statistical purposes during its decennial census". It's also a bit strange that the lead starts with something that this list is not about. Specifically talking about incorporation instead of the definition of a census designated place. Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: I've mixed a few active sentences into the lead. CDPs themselves don't have much of a definition, after a non-incorporated place. I've defined incorporation and the requirements specific to West Virginia to give a more complete definition of CDPs by way of contrast so that, if municipalities can do the defined articles listed under the Municipal Code of West Virginia, the implication is CDPs cannot. I followed the same for rules for incorporation. Seattle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead really needs a copyedit, but I like this list, so maybe I can take a look. Revert any edits you do not like. One thing that stands out is that almost all the lead is dedicated to talking about what makes an incorporated place, but the list is about unincorporated places. It's great information if this list was about incorporated places, but I don't understand why it's in this article.
- Also the caption beside the lead photo is great and useful, but also not related to the page in question. The list of CPDs should not have a detailed history of a particular building. That summary belongs on the page specific to that building, and this page can link to that one. Mattximus (talk)
- @Mattximus: I've mixed a few active sentences into the lead. CDPs themselves don't have much of a definition, after a non-incorporated place. I've defined incorporation and the requirements specific to West Virginia to give a more complete definition of CDPs by way of contrast so that, if municipalities can do the defined articles listed under the Municipal Code of West Virginia, the implication is CDPs cannot. I followed the same for rules for incorporation. Seattle (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Imzadi1979:
- The photos in the same section as the list table are creating a formatting issue. Right under the header, the photos appear on the right opposite a large blank space. Because the table is wider than the space left over by the photos, it appears under them. (The same behavior happens if I print the page to a PDF file.) I suggest converting the photos into a gallery under the table or removing them.
- That doesn't happen on my viewing platform, but I've seen that happen before. Moved to a gallery. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the photos, there is some work needed related to the captions. I suggest piping the state name out of links in the captions. It should be obvious that any mentioned places are in West Virginia based on the title of the page, but if they were retained, someone needs to audit them to make sure a comma always appears after the state name. Since all of the mentioned places are linked in the table, they need not be linked again in the captions. Someone should also audit if linked phrases are common enough to go unlinked.
- I've removed the state names from the captions. I don't have a problem with convenience links in the captions so that readers won't have to scroll back to the table for more information on the town pictured. If you have a specific phrase that needs to be unlinked, let me know. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the table itself, the population column should be right-aligned for legibility. If this was done, ones place, the tens place, the hundred place and the thousands place (with the comma) would line up. Then it would be more apparent at a quick glance which values are larger than others.
- They look fairly well aligned now; if the community's population is larger, an extra digit will appear from the previous entry, or they will be the same. For sortability purposes, the list appears aligned. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend that you use separate columns for area using
|disp=table
in {{convert}} since that would right-align the numbers for the same legibility concerns. It would have the added benefit that the unit value (sq mi or km2) would not need to be repeated in every row. You don't repeat "County" after every county name, so why do you need to repeat "sq mi" after every area? The implicit "people" unit for population isn't displayed in each row.
- I would recommend that you use separate columns for area using
- I've added a line break in the column to align the conversions, and removed the labels. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the references, you've used "United States Census Bureau" as the name of a published work, putting it in italics. Since it's the name of the agency that published those sources, it should not be in italics. Now if you wish to include the relationship of the United States Census Bureau to the United States Department of Commerce, you could use the former as the author and the latter as the publisher, you could list both as the publisher. You could drop the department and just use the bureau as the publisher, but as it stands, it should not be the name of a published work.
- Ultimately the United States Department of Commerce publishes the data collected by the United States Census Bureau, the work. The United States Census Bureau operates within the United States Department of Commerce. I've formatted references to the National Register of Historic Places, published by the National Park Service, in a similar fashion. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The West Virginia Code is the name of a published work, in this case a collection of the state's statutes. It should appear in italics to be consistent with the rest of the footnotes. Legal citations, in Bluebook format may italicize the title of an article in a journal or newspaper and then run the title of the word in roman ("plain") text, but you're not using Bluebook here, so you should conform those citations to the formatting style that is in use. The same goes for "Miss. Code Ann." (Mississippi Code Annotated) and "Fla. Stat." (Florida Statutes). At the very least, just as we advise with journal titles, we should not be abbreviating these. Since we are designed for a general audience, we should not presume that our readers know what "Miss. Code Ann." means.
- I don't yet have experience with Bluebook citations, but I tried to follow the abbreviations listed here. I expanded the legal citations' details, and included dates for publication. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher for the newspaper in n20 is superfluous and can be removed. With newspapers, the name of the paper alone (supplemented by the location of publication if not included in the paper's name) along with the date of publication is sufficient to identify the source of the article being cited. Since this is online, you should supply the access date, just as you did with other online sources.
- I don't see a problem with including the publisher for a newspaper. MOS:REF#Links and ID numbers implies access dates are optional for web sources with published dates, as does Wikipedia:Citing sources#Web pages. For web pages without published dates, I've included access dates. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If possible, it would be good to get publication dates for all of the sources that lack them. For the legal code sections, an enactment or effective date for the law (or its last amendment date) is sufficient.
- I've added dates where possible. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't state an opinion as to support or opposition at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 04:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The numbers in the table are not aligned, which is not the same as sortability. When you have different orders of magnitude, as you do here, right-aligned numbers would be better. Looking at some values from the table, 9 is an order of magnitude smaller than 95, which is still an order of magnitude smaller than 961, and there's another order of magnitude higher with 9,995. Spreadsheets, and the paper ledgers before them, use right-aligned numerical values, or decimal-aligned numbers so that these orders of magnitude line up: the ones place is on the right edge in every row, the tens place is immediately to the left of it in every row, etc. However, when you left align these numbers, the 9s all appear first, even though they represent values within their larger numbers of 9, 90, 900 and 9000. Last comment on this point: when you add an additional digit while counting up in numbers to indicate the next order of magnitude, such as when your car's odometer rolls over form 99,999 miles to 100,000, you add it to the left, not the right. When you left-align a set of numbers of mixed magnitudes, you're effectively adding that extra digit to the right.
- I never conflated sortability with alignment– if I sort the values, they left align. I've aligned population and areas to the right. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Area column suffers from these same concerns of alignment, which again isn't the same as sortability. Additionally, by putting the metric values underneath, the visual scanning breaks down. I scan down the table, and read areas of 3.27, 8.5, 10.26, 26.6... At a quick glance, I don't parse that as 3.27 mi2, 8.5 km2, 10.26 mi2, 26.6 km2, but the numbers run together as the same base unit because no base unit is specified. Also, the decimal places aren't consistent so it's a bit jarring to scan the column and see the precision flip back and forth. Also, the parentheses are problematic because that is one of the ways used in accounting to note negative values, along with the minus sign or red ink/print. In any case, it forces the reader to pause to discern what is being displayed instead of parsing it more naturally.
Now, this format might be necessary where space is limited, but it is not so limited here. Readers can figure out what the numbers mean, but not as easily as if they were in separate columns. You could use a header that placed the words "Total surface area" on one line that spanned both columns with "Square miles" and "Square kilometers" on a second line, or if that were too wide, you could use "mi2" and "km2" for the column labels on the second line. Then the values should be right aligned.
- Area column suffers from these same concerns of alignment, which again isn't the same as sortability. Additionally, by putting the metric values underneath, the visual scanning breaks down. I scan down the table, and read areas of 3.27, 8.5, 10.26, 26.6... At a quick glance, I don't parse that as 3.27 mi2, 8.5 km2, 10.26 mi2, 26.6 km2, but the numbers run together as the same base unit because no base unit is specified. Also, the decimal places aren't consistent so it's a bit jarring to scan the column and see the precision flip back and forth. Also, the parentheses are problematic because that is one of the ways used in accounting to note negative values, along with the minus sign or red ink/print. In any case, it forces the reader to pause to discern what is being displayed instead of parsing it more naturally.
- I've re-added the miles and km markers, because in no other column are two values present, and right-aligned values. And I credit our readers with enough good sense to realize that there can't be a negative value for a straight conversion of area. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Register of Historic Places is a published listing, and therefore a work; someplace is a printed copy of the register itself maintained by the National Park Service, and it alone isn't the name of an agency or office within the NPS. The "United States Census Bureau" itself is the name of a government agency, not the name of a book or a periodical like a magazine or journal. There may be a published work that begins with the name of the agency, a United States Census Bureau Journal, for instance, but that doesn't make the bare "United States Census Bureau" itself a published work that should appear in italics. It is either an author, a publisher, or both.
- Template:Cite web#TemplateData states that the "work" title represents the "title of the website". The work of census.gov is the United States Census Bureau. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you expanded the legal code names. For a generalist audience, those abbreviations can be quite cryptic, but lawyers who deal with them on a daily basis would not have such concerns. The page you referenced is for those in the legal profession, not a generalist audience.
- I don't care how you feel. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To comment on something in Harrias' review below, "census-defined place" is actually the more correct punctuation. Together "census" and "defined" jointly modify "place". There is no such thing, that I know of, as a "defined place" that would make sense modified by "census". No, instead it is a place that is "census defined", and when that compound adjective appears in front to modify the word "place", it should be hyphenated under basic English grammar rules. If the Census Bureau doesn't punctuate it that way though, well, that's a debate for another day. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a discussion you can hold at census designated place, not here. Seattle (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the website title at http://www.census.gov is "census.gov", if it has a title at all. (Not all websites do.) In turn, that website is published by the United States Census Bureau, a division of the United States Department of Commerce. The bureau is not the name of a published work no matter now you try to parse it.
- No, actually I'm "parsing" it directly from Template:Cite web; the "title" of the webpage is "United States Census Bureau", for which Census.gov represents. Seattle (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This version clearly shows how to compactly format the table with separate columns.
- As I noted above, you've dropped the word "County" from the name of each county in that column, because the column heading implies that. You've omitted the unit of "people" from the population column, because the column heading implies that. Properly done, there's no need to repeat the unit in each row of the table because the heading will imply the proper units. However, dropping the units and leaving the conversions in the same column is an open invitation for readers to mis-parse the data while scanning the table; seeing raw numbers in parentheses in a table can be mis-interpretted as negative numbers or notation of measure uncertainty.
- Tell me what criterion of the featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state, and I'll be happy to address it. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to believe that splitting the columns is bad for some reason, yet that's what
|disp=table
is for in {{convert}}.
- You seem to believe that splitting the columns is bad for some reason, yet that's what
- I don't know why it's there; you'd have to ask whoever added the parameter to {{convert}} his or her reasoning behind adding it to the template. As I noted above, I re-added the parameters because "in no other column are two values present". Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done this way, the two columns actually take up less horizontal space.
- The second column under "Total area" is superfluous to the first; "parse" it any way you want, but there's no reason that couldn't be one column.
- The table takes up less vertical space because the only rows that need to occupy two lines are those for places in two counties. So except for those rows, everything lines up across vertically as a reader scans each row horizontally as well. For those two-county rows, you could separate the two values by a simple comma instead of a line break, which wouldn't widen the column much, if at all. On narrower displays, the cells will still line-wrap at the comma if necessary to reduce the width of the overall column.
- Again, a smaller vertical width seems like a personal preference. Tell me what criterion of the featured list criteria the list fails, in its current state. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, the panoramic photo should be reinserted into the gallery, moved elsewhere (like the bottom of the lead), or removed. It is jarring to have this nicely formatted gallery with a photograph of a totally different formatting scheme directly underneath. The inconsistency gives an unpolished look.
- No, the photo, at that size, renders it too small for any productive use. Readers can see details of the community in its current form. Seattle (talk) 11:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—fails several criteria. Until this point, I had not reviewed the prose, but now that I have, I feel the lead section fails criterion 1 in addition to the WP:V policy. There is a direct quotation that lacks a citation for the source of the quotation, contrary to policy. From WP:V, "All quotations ... must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." Professional writing standards, and typical Wikipedian practice, is to immediately follow quoted text with a source. I might assume that the footnote at the end of the subsequent sentence is the source of the quotation, but that assumption would be no substitute for appropriate practices, even if that means consecutive sentence bear the same footnote.
- Moved. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The entire second paragraph is off-topic, but would be appropriate in a list of incorporated places in West Virginia. If this paragraph were recast a bit, it could be on-topic for CDPs/unincorporated places, but much of the information as presented does not apply to the topic at hand.
- Disagree. This paragraph actually describes CDPs by describing what they are not– they haven't met the requirements for incorporation, which I specify in paragraph two, or they have chosen not to incorporate. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving on to criterion 4, the second paragraph of the lead should be its own section once reworked as it would form a natural area of the topic of CDPs in the state, a description of what a CDP in the state is. The last paragraph of the lead, as it appears, is a good summary of some the details in the table, so it should remain in the lead to satisfy criterion 2.
- I'm not sure what your objection is here. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the length of some of the captions in the gallery cannot be classified as "succinct", failing criterion 5b. If the author wants to expound on various places, he or she can add a "Description" column to the table.
- If you have a specific objection, be sure to let me know. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 5a is failed related to the layout of the table regarding the area columns. The placement of a panoramic photograph immediately after a gallery, resulting in the juxtaposition of two styles of photographic elements also fails criterion 5a. Splitting the unit systems for the area would enhance the legibility or the ability of readers to parse the numerical data and improve the visual appeal of the table. Harmonizing the juxtaposition of photo layout styles, even just by moving the one photo up into the prose sections preceding the table would also improve the visual appeal.
- I'll disagree and point you to a consensus at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 against segregating units. Now, if you want to try and change that consensus through a RFC, that would be your best route– it currently appears that both are accepted. I disagree that the wide photo of Corrine is "jarring" after the gallery– it's a nice way to end the list, actually, with a detailed panorama of a West Virginian CDP. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons, I now oppose at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 11:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- List of cities and towns in Arizona (promoted in 2009), List of cities and towns in California (2012), and List of cities and towns in the San Francisco Bay Area (2012) use separate columns for each measurement system when displaying converted measurements, although they have the same issue I originally experienced with this list regarding blank space and photographs. The also include the population density, which is completely missing from this list. That tells me we're not satisfying criterion 3a related the "annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items". Similar lists for Canada and other countries lack converted values, specifying areas and population densities only in terms of square kilometers, so one could argue they're failing MOS:CONVERSIONS. However, they're at least putting the unit in the heading and not repeating it in every row of the table, something that currently has to be done here to keep the customary and metric straight. Imzadi 1979 → 12:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll disagree and point you to a consensus at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of municipalities in Rio Grande do Norte/archive1 against segregating units. Now, if you want to try and change that consensus through a RFC, that would be your best route– it currently appears that both are accepted at FLC. I'll consider adding a "population density" column. Seattle (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, all three FLs to which you pointed me do not have a "population density" column. Pinging featured list director @Giants2008: and delegates @Crisco 1492:, @SchroCat:, and @PresN: for official comment. Seattle (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Arizona list has the population density, but it is the oldest list of the three and some of the table features show its age. I don't know that much about what is expected of similar lists, but it's not something I would personally mandate. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is it a "List of census-designated places in West Virginia" with a hyphen, when it defines a "census designated place" with no hyphen? Unless there is a reason I am missing, this should be made consistent, and probably follow our article, and have no hyphen.
- Moved. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. As far as I can tell from the first paragraph, a CDP lacks "elected municipal officers and boundaries with legal status", while the second paragraphs discusses "municipal corporations": are "municipal corporations" a subset of CDPs?
- Clarified. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph seem a bit repetitive, given that Bowden is the smallest and least populated, those facts could do with being merged into one sentence.
- Merged. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything in the table looks hunky dory, and the images display fine next to it for me, but I do have a wide screen. Harrias talk 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot assume all readers have wide screens. I have one as well, but I keep my window width constrained to approximate a sheet of paper held in the portrait (upright) orientation, not a sheet of paper in landscape (wide screen) orientation. Before the page was changes, I had the same issue viewing the desktop version of the article on my iPad in the portrait orientation, and when I rotated the device to landscape mode. Viewing the mobile version of the page, pre-change, gave me the same formatting issues in portrait mode, but not in landscape. And just to be complete, I viewed the page on my phone. My phone gave me the same results as my tablet for the desktop view. In mobile view, the table appeared under the photos no matter which way I held my phone.
In short, we have a lot of variables to account for in laying out the elements of a page, and assuming that a reader has a wide screen and won't have issues with a format is a bad idea. The change to a gallery under the table is a great improvement. Imzadi 1979 → 23:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot assume all readers have wide screens. I have one as well, but I keep my window width constrained to approximate a sheet of paper held in the portrait (upright) orientation, not a sheet of paper in landscape (wide screen) orientation. Before the page was changes, I had the same issue viewing the desktop version of the article on my iPad in the portrait orientation, and when I rotated the device to landscape mode. Viewing the mobile version of the page, pre-change, gave me the same formatting issues in portrait mode, but not in landscape. And just to be complete, I viewed the page on my phone. My phone gave me the same results as my tablet for the desktop view. In mobile view, the table appeared under the photos no matter which way I held my phone.
- Moved images; I didn't see a break, but I've seen them before. Seattle (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (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
- 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]
- 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]
There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove seeing no other edits. Not convinced the prose / referencing of the larger article is up to FA snuff. Also, the URLs have moved to the memorial website (e.g. https://www.stiftung-berliner-mauer.de/de/gedenkstaette-berliner-mauer/historischer-ort/bernauer-strasse ), so it'd be cool if rather than relying on Wayback copies, they were updated, but more of a nice-to-have. (Also, some parts of the table are questionable IMO... why is the person's birthdate & age relevant? But I'm a "less is more" type.) SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thebiguglyalien, did you notify the relevant editors and WikiProjects? If so, please add that to the nomination. If not, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thebiguglyalien: I've notified WP Germany and MILHIST. In the future, this can be done with Template:FLRCMessage. I'll be giving this a bit more time since no wiki projects were notified, and I hadn't actually responded to you (sorry about that). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not. I wanted to bring attention to this, I'm not particularly sure how you guys like to go about it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Thebiguglyalien, did you happen to notify any WikiProjects about this? If not, we should do so before moving forward with delisting. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with SnowFire that this probably shouldn't be considered a list. This is a 5,600 word article complemented by a list. The redirect Deaths at the Berlin Wall seems far more appropriate. Considering the extent of the prose in the article it's very surprising that there are still citations in the lede. I have not read through this article in detail because with only a brief skim I've added twelve cn tags. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Would we consider reverting the article back to its FLC state (or a similar revision) and splitting much of its newer prose content to a new article? "Deaths at the Berlin Wall", suggested above, seems appropriate. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is trying to be an article rather than a list, I'd like to see some context/comparison with other causes of border deaths—for example, the Berlin Wall is often compared to the Mediterranean in terms of border deaths. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, The ed17, and Buidhe, if you want to split the article and take it in another direction, or you believe it's not necessarily suited to be a list, we can move forward with a split or delisting (if concerns go unaddressed). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no skin in this game, but my question there was intended to provide a path where this would maintain FL status without losing the potentially useful content that's been added over the years. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]