Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions
new nom |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list |
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list |
||
Please check that the list meets the FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
Please check that the list meets the FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Lady Gaga/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Brokeback Mountain/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of British Columbia general elections/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of British Columbia general elections/archive1}} |
Revision as of 04:51, 19 September 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: |
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 Hawkeye7 via FACBot (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): GagaNutellatalk and Frankie talk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC), IndianBio[reply]
Lady Gaga in less than ten years has won several awards such as the Grammys, Brits, and VMAs. After a long work, we believe it meets the criteria. The awards in this list are reliable and we've added sources for all of them. GagaNutellatalk 22:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Maile — Maile (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by Maile
|
- Support - — Maile (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Johannatalk to me!see my work 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Johanna
|
- Support Well done. Johannatalk to me!see my work 21:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support from an IP with a few comments:
- "It also won Best International Album at the 2010 BRIT Awards"- this sentence is a bit confusing as in the preceding sentence you talk about "Poker Face"'s win while here is an unknown "it". Please replace it with "The album" or "The Fame".
- Please fix the red link in FiFi Award.
- Little Monsters are not the recipient of the iHeartRadio Music Award for Best Fan Army but Gaga herself.
- Links for Beyonce need to be removed from the Billboard Music Awards and Grammy Awards.
- Done, thank you!!! GagaNutellatalk 16:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support . Well-written list, good work! TheFame08 (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegates please take into consideration that the above Support is not even remotely credible checking the user's contribution and the fact that it passed an article as GA without even reviewing it. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 14:18, 5 December 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. (Talk) 00:03, 14 December 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 08:24, 13 October 2015 [2].
- Nominator(s): Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because after heavy cleanup, I believe that it meets the criteria. For those of you who don't know, Brokeback Mountain is a 2005 epic romantic drama film about the complex romantic and sexual relationship between two men, Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist. It won the Academy Award for Best Director and controversially lost Best Picture to Crash. It received 77 wins and 143 nominations. I look forward to reading and responding to any comments! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GagaNutellatalk 03:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from GagaNutella
GagaNutellatalk 15:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support It looks great now. Great job! GagaNutellatalk 17:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*87th Academy Awards should by changed to 78th Academy Awards since the film was nominated for those awards during that particular ceremony.
|
- Support: Excellent list.
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*No need for in addition. Just say Michelle Williams..... featured in supporting roles. This needs a ref too.
Cowlibob (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Cowlibob: Take a look now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 21:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Ref 1 needs page numbers where the cited info can be found within the book. Cowlibob (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cowlibob: Page 129. Done. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Quite well sourced and well formatted. Nice background info in the lede intro sect, which helps provide some context and ground the reader in the subject matter. Good job and good luck, — Cirt (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
|
- Support – all of my craps have been dealt with. -- Frankie talk 15:19, 6 October 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) 08:09, 13 October 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 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Nominator(s): --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article was previously promoted to Featured list status in December 2006 (and subsequently became part of a Featured topic in January 2007). However, earlier this year, in April 2015, this article was delisted as a Featured list due to its lack of inline citations, out-of-date referencing, and MOS-type problems with its table-lists (e.g. not adhering to WP:SALORDER, and antiquated table coding, etc.). I have spent the last few weeks attempting to resolve those issues, and I believe this article is now ready to be relisted as a Featured list, so I am (re-)nominating this article for Featured list status. (Most of the other Canadian provincial elections lists articles have also been delisted as FL's, outside of List of Alberta general elections which is still a Featured list, and I hope to fix those other articles, and renominate those over the next couple of months... But I am starting with the British Columbia article, as the one closest to being completely renovated enough for WP:FL status.) I look forward to working through this process. Thank you! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just some drive-by comments, no time for a full review yet.
- "This article provides a summary of results" is no longer considered appropriate for featured lists, nor is "The chart on the right shows", and "The table below shows"...
- (Interlacing my replies here.) OK, I have eliminated that kind of language from the lede. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should summarize the table, for example include sentences on any trends over the years, and referenced explanations. It needs to be substantially rewritten.
- I have substantially reworked the lede. I doubt it's anywhere near "perfect" yet, but hopefully it's getting there. I based the first paragraph off List of Alberta general elections, but reworked the intro sentence so it's not just a "copy" of the Alberta one. (That intro sentence may be "clunky" as a result – if so, please let me know...) But hopefully the lede is at least more "professional" now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The second graph is missing the latest election results.
- That second figure is a problem. I can't tell what it was worked up in, but I don't think it was Microsoft Excel. As a result, I doubt I can just whip up an "updated for 2013" version of that one that'll look similar to the way that figure looks now. Additionally, it seems wholly redundant with the article's first graph-figure. As a result, if there's no objection, I'd like to just remove the second figure from the article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" has a reference, but I can't find any of that information on page 6 as indicated.
- OK, I hope it's OK to quote the source verbetim for the purposes of this discussion, but I'm going to do so (this is from p.6, as per the reference at the article):
I think this section of the source pretty much confirms the first paragraph of the 'Elections prior to provincial political parties' section, as well some of what's asserted in the second and third sentences of the last paragraph in the lede. However, it's certainly possible that both of these can be worded better to align them more closely with the quoted text from the source, above. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]...Before 1903 lines were drawn between Government supporters, grouped around the Premier, and the Opposition, grouped around one or more Opposition leaders. Candidates declared themselves as one or the other, or as Independents. There was no formal selection process for the most part so it was not uncommon for Government (or Opposition) candidates to be running against another Government (or Opposition) candidate... After an election, and not infrequently during the life of a Parliament, the position of Government and Opposition was often reversed. From 1871 to 1903 there were eight parliaments and fifteen governments; the seventh and eight Parliaments accounted for six of those governments. Allegiances shifted frequently depending on the issue, there was little to no discipline. In 1886 separate Labour candidates first appeared and in 1900 a Socialist candidate was nominated. The 1900 general election is also significant in that although the traditional division of Government and Opposition was still present, party groupings were beginning to play a role and it foreshadowed the election of 1903 along full party lines.2
- OK, I hope it's OK to quote the source verbetim for the purposes of this discussion, but I'm going to do so (this is from p.6, as per the reference at the article):
- The entire second paragraph of "Elections prior to provincial political parties" is completely unsourced, missing any wikilinks and needs to be written more clearly. That whole paragraph is painful to read.
- I've added wikilinks for the premieres. (In terms of sourcing I'll see what I can dig up, and come back with what I find...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Full details on any election are linked via the year of the election at the start of the row" is almost tautological for any wikipedia user. And is written twice in the article.
- You're right – I've removed that sentence. But, follow-up question: Is the phrasing "The table below shows..." in this section still acceptable language? Or is that also antiquated for FL's, and so needs to be reworded? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely improved since it was demoted thanks to your efforts, but there is still quite a bit of work to get it back to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And, noted! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Round two:
- The lead is much, much better than before. Just a minor quibble: the last sentence is bit clunky, and can be fixed by being a bit more clear by writing something like ... "which won every election since 2001" or "all subsequent elections since 2001" or something like that.
- I reworked the last sentence of the lede – I think it's better now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes better to scrap the second image since the information is contained within the first one anyway. The first one is good, but it would be much better if the grey background was white, but that's not a reason to oppose the nomination.
- Yes – I put in a request to the original author to update that second figure, but have heard nothing back. As it is redundant to the first figure in any case, I have simply removed the second one from the article. As to improving the first figure, I think it was worked up in Microsoft Excel – I was thinking about trying to recreate it anyway to, among other things, get rid of the gray background (which was the default background color for graphs in certain versions of MS Excel...). I will probably be busy this week, but I will try to get to that soon... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the table, I'm not sure if the explanatory paragraph is needed at all. Maybe it can be removed and the title changed to "Summary of election results", especially since the 1903 cut off is explained in the paragraph below and the paragraph above. The table looks good but can it be left justified?
- I've left the intro paragraph in for now, but this particular question is an important one because if consensus is that these tables need no direct "intro text", that will affect all of the other Canadian Provincial election articles as well. So I wouldn't mind hearing from others for their opinions on this question... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops – forgot to mention that I removed "centering" on the main elections table, so it is now 'left-justified'. Do you want the second (pre-1903) elections table also left-justified? – I'll admit: I prefer that one "centered" as it's smaller. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraph under "Elections prior to provincial political parties" needs a bit of rewording. For example: "Until the 1903 election, political parties in BC had no official recognition" is needlessly passive. Can be written "Political parties in British Columbia had no official recognition until the 1903 election. The next sentence does not make sense. Can get rid of "however" and start with Some candidates.... "and were considered as "Government" candidates"..."whereas those not in support of the present administration were considered "Non-Government" or Independent." What is meant by "did not bear out"... that should be clarified.
- Again, reworked this paragraph. Let me know if it still needs work!--IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph needs to be rewritten to be more clear.
- FTR, I'm still going to look for some sourcing for that paragraph – if I can't find adequate sourcing, I intend to just cut it from the article entirely. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking close to a support! Mattximus (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Round Three: Looks much better overall than before, I think my nitpicking is complete. If you do get a chance to change that opening graph, in addition to making the background white, I would also remove the horizontal lines as they weave in and out of the bars making it quit distracting. The only part preventing me from supporting is the unsourced last paragraph. It contains interesting stuff, but it needs to be sourced. Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. --PresN 22:02, 10 November 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 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an interesting stats page that passes all the FL?. Last time it failed because of lack of reviewer interest, which I hope will not be the case this time. Nergaal (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please fix all the SHOUTING in the references, there's no need to have the surnames of every player capitalised, even if that's what the website you're using does. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- done. Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical comments Tournaments column doesn't sort properly. Use consistent accuracy for goal average. Make sure all player names include their diacritics. Don't use bold alone as a way to distinguish between players. Date format should be consistent from table to table. Why isn't the second table sortable? Why are you suddenly abbreviating country names without a key? Ref 2 doesn't ref the numbers in that table at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorts now. so you want a 1.00 instead of 1.0? You have an example where I missed it and it doesn't? Done. What date format are you referring to? Which column would you consider it to be necessary sortable (since it is a timeline table)? For brevity/clarity purposes as having the full names seems to clutter the table too much. Which table, the intro? Nergaal (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll do a proper review once these issues are resolved, right now it needs a lot of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (1) "The 29 top goalscorers played for 17 different nations, seven players being Brazilian, and eight from Germany or West Germany." Looks like the actual numbers for Brazil and (W) Germany are 5 and 3 respectively.
- Not sure where that error appeared from, but thanks for catching it. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (2) Can you please fix the sorting using the 'world cup' column in the 'top scorer by tournament' table. Once you sort it using one of the other columns, clicking the sort in the World Cup does not sort in the order of world cups.
- Figured out what is happening. When you sort using the 'world cup' column, it now sorts as per the host country. So the Argentina 78 appears first, followed by Brazil 1950, Brazil 2014 etc. The column should be sorted according to the year of the competition - 1930, 1934 etc. Tintin 09:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the sorting with that column. Nergaal (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Figured out what is happening. When you sort using the 'world cup' column, it now sorts as per the host country. So the Argentina 78 appears first, followed by Brazil 1950, Brazil 2014 etc. The column should be sorted according to the year of the competition - 1930, 1934 etc. Tintin 09:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Few more quick quibbles before a proper review, I wish WP:PR was still functional these days....
- Number of goalscorers[2] isn't referenced by [2].
- FIFA seems to have switched the links quite a bit (so I have to go though quite a bit of other refs to relink them). I switched the used reference to something that is a list to all the WCs. I could change that to a note saying something like "see a complete list for 1930, ...., 2014 if you think that is more appropriate. As I've said above, FIFA does not seem to provide a compiled table (as of now), so all the counted totals are just that, manually counted (that is why I have ~ and >). Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CAPTION.
- added "."
- Respect diacritics.
- I am not sure what you mean here. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For players names, be consistent with diacritics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place I wasn't strictly consistent is in the FIFA titles that FIFA themselves use. Outside of the ref titles, all the names should be consistent. Nergaal (talk)
- They need to be correct, not just consistent. Suker, Eusebio, (Rivellino needs to be spelt correctly), James Rodriguez, Oscar Miguez, Zidane.... to name a few. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The only place I wasn't strictly consistent is in the FIFA titles that FIFA themselves use. Outside of the ref titles, all the names should be consistent. Nergaal (talk)
- For players names, be consistent with diacritics. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what you mean here. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Goal average still isn't to the same precision.
- I can change it, but to me saying 1.00 seems a bit strange. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Same precision please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can change it, but to me saying 1.00 seems a bit strange. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "at least 5 goals" MOSNUM please.
- I thought anything under 10 should be spelled out. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhhuh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ?
- 5 is under 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, are you talking about the table caption? If yes, do the same MOS rules apply since tables generally do contain numbers? Nergaal (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 5 is under 10. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ?
- Uhhuh. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought anything under 10 should be spelled out. Nergaal (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Date formats in the article like "1930-07-13" are just a joke, not easily readable by normal humans.
- Three-letter-abbreviations for countries is bad, spell it out.
- They are commonly used in FIFA broadcasts.
- This is a Wikipedia article, not a FIFA broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- changed
- This is a Wikipedia article, not a FIFA broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They are commonly used in FIFA broadcasts.
- 1+1?
- Twice, there were two separate games played at the same tournament against TCS and Turkey.
- That's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Twice, there were two separate games played at the same tournament against TCS and Turkey.
- Publisher is FIFA, not FIFA.com.
- fixed
- WP:DASH fails in ref titles, e.g. ref 31.
- "M.espn.go.com. " is ESPN.
- fixed
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: I have fixed most of the issues you mentioned, and left a few clarification questions for the remaining few. Any suggestions? Nergaal (talk) 16:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there are some things I can still see that need to be addressed.
- The micro-table in the lead may be referenced by [1] but how? [1] just leads to a generic FIFA website page.
- Do you think this is a RS? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to explain why goals in penalty shoot-outs are not included.
- It is the sort of thing if you follow the WC you "just know" but honestly not sure how to find a ref why FIFA doesn't include in the stats. The best I could find is help.bet365dotcom/en/rules/rules-sports/soccer which is blacklisted. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a ref showing totals explicitly excluding shoot-outs. Nergaal (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the sort of thing if you follow the WC you "just know" but honestly not sure how to find a ref why FIFA doesn't include in the stats. The best I could find is help.bet365dotcom/en/rules/rules-sports/soccer which is blacklisted. Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You have "2,300" then "1200", so be consistent throughout.
- fixed
- "edition" is very American, why not just use the name of the tournament, e.g. instead of "The top goalscorer of the first edition was" perhaps "The top goalscorer of the inaugural competition was"?
- Inaugural competition sounds awkward to me but I changed to that. Nergaal (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Since then, only 22 players have surpassed this threshold at games " not clear, it seems that Stábile scored all his goals in a single tournament. This sentence is unclear.
- He did score only in 1930. It appears he only played 4 games for Arg, those all at the 1930 WC. Is the current formulation more clear but not too awkward? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " in 1954" Easter egg link.
- There are a few links like this. You think I should just remove all the yearly links? Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been encouraged to remove them from GAs so as this is a featured candidate, yes, rephrasing it each time is the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed all the easter eggs. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been encouraged to remove them from GAs so as this is a featured candidate, yes, rephrasing it each time is the solution. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few links like this. You think I should just remove all the yearly links? Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "managed to improve on this record" clumsy, just "improved on" is fine.
- changed
- " in only six games" POV. State the facts, don't apply POV.
- He has the third best g/g average. Doesn't that count as "only"? Nergaal (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "at the 1970 edition" awful, perhaps, "in the 1970 World Cup finals".
- Changed to just the year. I tried to stay away from repeating "World Cup" too much, and finals is a bit confusing as it could refer just the final game of each tournament. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "during Germany's win" Germany or West Germany?
- fixed
- " a total of " unnecessary.
- removed
- "between 1998 and 2006." easter eggs.
- see above
- " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why relink Germany national team?
- removed
- " Germany's Miroslav Klose would go on to" why "would go on", it's happened, speak in English.
- changed
- "consecutive tournaments between 2002 and 2014" easter eggs.
- see above
- " Pelé with twelve between 1958 and 1970, and Jürgen Klinsmann with eleven between 1990 and 1998." easter eggs and unreferenced.
- They are referenced in the table though. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So that's half-way through the lead, I'll give more feedback once these issues are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for player's names, I didn't mean the ref titles, I meant their usage in the article itself. Make things like (right) into (right) in image captions. spell Ernst Wilimowski correctly, explain what "Goal average" means (we know this, but why should a layman get it?), I'm also not seeing how the up arrow is adequately referenced, e.g. Tim Cahill's link doesn't demonstrate that he played for Australia within the past twelve months (and surely that will age really quickly, you need a different way of explaining this....) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely am completely unable to find the examples you see; I went multiple times and still cannot catch any missing/inconsistent diacritics.
- e.g. Oscar Míguez should be Óscar Míguez, Zinédine Zidane should be Zinedine Zidane etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At least the ones you emntioned I've fixed. I really have a hard time finding others so please let me know if I am still missing any. Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- e.g. Oscar Míguez should be Óscar Míguez, Zinédine Zidane should be Zinedine Zidane etc etc... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I had absolutely no idea about the italics use but I changed it.
- Fixed the Wilmowski name.
- Added tooltip to goal average even though I find it extremely weird.
- Well you could change the name to "goals per game" then. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the wording to "have continued playing for their national team after the 2014 tournament".
- I sincerely am completely unable to find the examples you see; I went multiple times and still cannot catch any missing/inconsistent diacritics.
Nergaal (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few more thoughts on the next portion of the lead:
- "with 9 goals" MOS says "nine".
- Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops.
- The only one that doesn't is not a full sentence. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still fail to see how ref [1] verifies the information in the table in the lead.
- Is this a RS so I can use it as a replacement? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if that's an RS, have you asked the football project? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So I added a 100% reliable ref for all those up to 4 goals, but for 3, 2, and 1 I still have that one. At least one FOOTY user (Jaellee) "found no sign of user-generated content and I haven't seen anything else which would disqualify it". Nergaal (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if that's an RS, have you asked the football project? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a RS so I can use it as a replacement? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "90 players who have scored at least five goals, only five " per WP:NUMNOTES, "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures".
- I tried to redo the numbers per what I think the rules are. Let me know if I screwed up anywhere. Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't repeat first names after the first usage of a player's full name.
- removed
- "60 footballers came from " why past tense? Especially as several are still active.
- present
- "60 footballers came from UEFA (Europe), 26 from CONMEBOL (South America), and only four players" NUMNOTES again.
- fixed
- The lead is surprisingly devoid of references, e.g. where is inclusion in the all-star team referenced?
- Unless I completely messed something up, everything in the intro that does not have a ref there has a ref in the tables below. You would prefer to double up the ref usage? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat: where is the all-star team inclusion referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch. I completely missed that the teams were not in there. I added a somewhat detailed note with appropriate links instead. Nergaal (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat: where is the all-star team inclusion referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I completely messed something up, everything in the intro that does not have a ref there has a ref in the tables below. You would prefer to double up the ref usage? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed or addressed all the concerns you have pointed out. Let me know what is there still left to be done. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes sporting99.com a reliable source? I can't see any evidence that it meets our requirements. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked multiple times and I couldn't find any good ref for the All-Star team before 1994 so I removed the column entirely. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintin1107 and The Rambling Man:. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this nomination has been open for 2 months without a support, so I'm going to have to close it as not passed. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get more reviewers for a nomination is to review other nominations yourself. --PresN 22:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In these 2 months I did like five or so reviews, and gotten only TRM here... This must be like my 5th straight FLC not getting reviews, so I think I'll stop submitting here. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 10 November 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 13:46, 27 November 2015 [7].
- Nominator(s): WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list with @MPJ-DK: because I feel it meets the criteria. MPJ and I worked on it for the last few days, merging the separate list and the main article to nominate it for FL. All issues will be addressed by MPJ and I.--WillC 03:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "which effectively unified International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship" => "which effectively unified the International Wrestling Council (IWC) World Heavyweight Championship"
- "as well as the four number one contenders to each respective championship" - there were not four number one contenders to each championship, and the word "respective" is completely unnecessary. Change to "as well as the number one contender to each championship"
- "which was called simply Mexican Heavyweight Championship" => "which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship"
- "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA in Antonio Peña Memorial Show" => "Cibernético quit the company because Konnan took over AAA at the Antonio Peña Memorial Show"
- The date format for the general refs is different to that used for the specific refs
- In the lead you refer to Mesias winning the "finals" but in the bracket this match is shown as the "final". I'm not sure what the correct US usage is, but regardless they should be consistent
Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll handle these shortly. They went by without my notice.--WillC 12:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: All concerns addressed.--WillC 18:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One other quick point.....when you say "it is sometimes referred to in the English press", I presume you mean the English-language press, rather than the press in England......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed--WillC 17:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Everything seems to be in order, well done.LM2000 (talk) 09:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I feel bad seeing this list at the bottom of the stack, about to get archived but with two supports. So here's a review- recusing myself as a delegate to be a reviewer instead.
- "compete in direct competition." - repeated word
- Fixed
- "In 2011, the then-AAA Mega Champion and Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) founder Jeff Jarrett appeared with a redesigned version of the title on TNA programming, which was referred to simply as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship." - difficult to parse; you seem to mean that a title match was shown on TNA with a different name (MHC), but the sentence starts off talking about stuff you've never mentioned before and then gets confusing as to what "which was" is referring to, the title match or TNA.
- Reworded
- "The Championship belt was the Mega Championship belt with a silver hexagonal plate covering the AAA faceplate, this was done due to Spike TV not allowing TNA to refer to AAA by name." - run-on sentence
- Reworded
- That whole section is kind of overweighted- you describe the belt, talk about the channel it was on... but don't do that for the regular match series.
- Trying to do an overview like most titles about the only significant moments instead of all moments.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Title tournament bracket" - this is just the initial 2007 tournament of champions, yes? It's not clear in this section if that's so. Even just renaming the section to "Initial title tournament bracket" would help
- reworded
- "Title History" - shouldn't this be three rows, with AAA Mega Championship split between the first and third?
- What?
- The empty "Notes" fields in the big table under "Reigns" are a bit jarring- why are they empty?
- Nothing special happened during the reigns. Just won and defended the title. No controversial finish or storyline.
- The lead says that the current champion is Alberto, but the table says that he's no longer the champion now that he's signed with WWE- lead should be updated.
- fixed
- Dates in the references are formatted inconsistantly; standardize on either "yyyy-mm-dd" or "Month dd, yyyy"
- Fixed
- Is the ref publisher SuperLuchas, SuperLuchas Magazine, or Súper Luchas, because you use all three in the refs
- I think they are different publishes. I don't deal with Mexican titles much. That is an issue for MPJ to settle since I'm expanding this due to its connection to TNA.
- Ref 15- you don't need to specify the staff as the author; if no specific person is listed just leave it blank
- Fixed.
I think this is all quite fixable. If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my FLC nomination up above. --PresN 15:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: I'll get this as soon as I can. I'm going on a business trip for the weekend so it will be a few days before I know I'll have free time.--WillC 10:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: All concerns settled. Thanks for the review.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining: I fixed a couple minor things, but the SuperLuchas bit is still outstanding. Also, now I'm really confused as to what's going on with the "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" thing- I thought, especially with it called out in the "Title History" section, that the name of the AAA Mega Championship was actually changed to "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" from July 14, 2011 – March 18, 2012. But that's not true at all, is it? Nothing changed about the AAA MC; it's just that the guy who was the champion appeared on a series that didn't have licensing rights to use the name, so that (completely separate) series called it the MHC. If that's all true, you're giving that bit of trivia way too much weight in the article's lead, and it certainly shouldn't be called out as an official name change in that table in "Title History". --PresN 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- SuperLucas is fixed. The title change thing is rather simple but hard to explain to a non-viewer. Promotions change the name of titles all of the time. When the WWE got the WCW Championship they changed the name several times. TNA changed the name of the IWGP Tag Team Championship. The point is that SpikeTV didn't want to advertise AAA on their programming so TNA was forced to call it another name. Jarrett holding the title and advertising it on national TV under a different name is a pretty big deal. Do believe he defended it in TNA as well.--WillC 05:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining: I fixed a couple minor things, but the SuperLuchas bit is still outstanding. Also, now I'm really confused as to what's going on with the "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" thing- I thought, especially with it called out in the "Title History" section, that the name of the AAA Mega Championship was actually changed to "Mexican Heavyweight Championship" from July 14, 2011 – March 18, 2012. But that's not true at all, is it? Nothing changed about the AAA MC; it's just that the guy who was the champion appeared on a series that didn't have licensing rights to use the name, so that (completely separate) series called it the MHC. If that's all true, you're giving that bit of trivia way too much weight in the article's lead, and it certainly shouldn't be called out as an official name change in that table in "Title History". --PresN 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: All concerns settled. Thanks for the review.--WillC 23:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerns addressed @PresN:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --PresN 21:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look at this. Don't know a whole lot about professional wrestling, but after reading through the article, I think I've got a good grasp on the AAA Mega Championship at least. Here are just a few comments:
Lead
- The championship is generally contested in professional wrestling matches, in which participants execute scripted finishes rather than in direct competition. While this is a fairly known fact by now, there still needs to be a reference for scripted finishes.
- Done
- When mentioning the four championships that were unified, there should be a ref.
- Ref at end of paragraph coves that.
- While Jarrett appeared in TNA with the title it was referred to as the Mexican Heavyweight Championship. I think a comma is missing after title.
- Done
- Overall, there have been 12 reigns shared among 8 wrestlers, with one vacancy]]. If the ]] at the end was for vacancy, then it should be removed as vacant is already linked in that paragraph.
- Forgot that when I added vacant earlier.
Inaugural Championship Tournament bracket
- Just out of curiosity, what makes the inaugural championship worthy of having a bracket, while none of the others have one? Hopefully I'm not missing anything here, but it seems kind of odd to have it.
- Not all championships have tournaments to crown the first champion. When they do a bracket is usually added if notable. This was a bunch of champions fighting to become the main champion. Pretty notable.
Title history
- There should be a ref for AAA Mega Championship under names
- done
- In the Reigns section, there's some overlinking of some articles, like Zapopan, Jalisco, tape delay, as well as some of the wrestlers themselves.
- As far as I'm aware these tables are not subject to overlinking. I've never had an overlinking issue in the past.
- I know it's obvious, but to be consistent with naming conventions, it should be Mexico City, Mexico, not just Mexico City
- Done
References
- Refs 16, 18, 19, and 23 need to say (in Spanish)
- done
Other stuff
- No disambiguation links, that's nice.
- Both images have alt text, once again, good job.
- Good
That's all I could see. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't know a whole lot about wrestling in general (much more of a baseball guy myself), but overall, I think a casual reader will understand this article just fine. Clean up some of the comments (or provide a explanation as to why some comments weren't addressed), and you've got yourself a support. BTW, would you mind looking at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All concerns addressed. Thank you for the review. Once I get a chance I will review your list. @Famous Hobo:--WillC 20:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Alright, that's everything. Thanks for giving explanations. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:02, 26 November 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. – 13:37, 27 November 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 18:17, 4 October 2015 [8].
- Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Australian actress Nicole Kidman is known for films such as Dead Calm (1989) Days of Thunder (1990), Eyes Wide Shut (1999), Moulin Rouge! (2001), and her Oscar-winning turn as Virginia Woolf in The Hours (2002). This list is a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her film and television career thus far. As usual I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from jonkerz
Very nice article; here are my initial comments after a first read-through and cross-referencing with IMDb:
Film section
- Wills and Burke – The Untold Story is not wikilinked (Wills & Burke on WP)
- Watch the Shadows Dance is not wikilinked, neither is the director Mark Joffe
- The Bit Part is not wikilinked
- Emerald City: role listed as 'Helen Davey' in the article, but 'Helen McCord' on IMDb
- Bewitched: role listed as 'Isabel Bigelow' in the article, but 'Isabel Bigelow / Samantha' on IMDb
- Happy Feet: voice only, this could be included in the notes
TV section
- Five Mile Creek: this is the only television series that does not list the number of episodes. Listing it first in the section gives the impression that this was Kidman's first television appearance, but she only starred in season 3 which aired in 1985 (IMDb).
- Chase Through the Night: released 1983 according to the list and the main article, but 1984 according to IMDb
- Archer's Adventure is not wikilinked (Archer (film) on WP), and does not list the channel
- Winners: it could be noted that the episode Kidman starred in was spun off into the 1987 movie adaptation Room to Move
Misc comments
- No. 5 the Film is listed on IMDb (as Chanel N°5: The Film (Short)) but is not included in the list
- I've always considered television film to be more "films" than "television", but seeing that other featured filmographies place TV films in the television section, that's not really relevant to this nomination. jonkerz ♠talk 19:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonkerz:Thanks for the review. Am in the process of sorting all these. Got most done. Some clarifications. Helen Davey is the character she played in Emerald City an adaptation of the play, she was the girlfriend of Mike McCord. Winners was an anthology series of eight feature length television episodes with one of them being Room to Move. Television films I've also considered as feature length television productions so should be in the television section. Thanks for the wikilinks, I had searched for them before but seem to have missed these ones. Cowlibob (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: both photos are freely licensed and their captions match Google Image search results for "Kidman Cannes Film Festival 2001/2013". Neither File:Nicole_kidman3cropped.jpg nor the non-cropped image mention anything about "Kidman promoting Moulin Rouge! ..." (from the caption), but this album confirms that this was the reason she was in Cannes, so that's not really an issue.
- Sorting, including "Last, First", works for all relevant columns.
- @Jonkerz: Thanks for the image review. I think I've sorted all of the above comments. Cowlibob (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
It's mostly good but I've got nitpicks
- "increasing her profile internationally"..... reads awkwardly
- Remove the comma after "actress" in "she played actress, and princess Grace Kelly"
- "Voice only" → "Voice role"
- No need to include Nicole Kidman discography in "See also"
Shouldn't take long to sort out Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review I think I've dealt with your points.Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review I think I've dealt with your points.Cowlibob (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
|
- Support – All of my queries have been answered. -- Frankie talk 22:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cirt
- Support. Incredibly well referenced list page. — Cirt (talk) 03:26, 26 September 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) 18:37, 4 October 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 18:17, 4 October 2015 [9].
- Nominator(s): — Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2011 Indian Telugu action comedy film Dookudu, starring Mahesh Babu. This is my first film awards list at the FLC, and I hope to receive constructive comments to improve it. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash I made a few tweaking edits, so this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you made a few "tweaks", you support this? —Vensatry (ping) 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article is still up to my expectations, save for a few prose issues (which I fixed), so I support it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
|
- Support – sorry for taking so much time. -- Frankie talk 09:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – First Class! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 17:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I can't really find any flaws in this list. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian Support Pavanjandhyala, per Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I assess that this list features professional standards of writing in the lede, the lede is engaging, the lede and list are indeed comprehensive, and the structure and style are both adequate. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the list. The lede defines the movie and its accolades, establishes context for the accolades, explains why the movie and its accolades are notable, and summarizes the most important points of the list.
- The image of Mahesh Babu has been released into the public domain and it is therefore suitable for inclusion here.
- The lede is well-written, its contents contains inline citations to verifiable references, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
List
- The list is beautifully formatted and each accolade is supported with an inline citation to a verifiable reference and I have no comments or suggestions for this list.
Comments from Onel5969 Support - nicely done article which meets all the criteria on Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. West Virginian's comment are spot on. In addition, it's comprehensive, and meets the reqs for a stand alone list, it's style and navigability are fine. There are no edit wars in its history. Onel5969 TT me 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Looks pretty good.
Cowlibob (talk) 11:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments - to the above reviewers: no sections please, per "Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings)."
- This may be personal preference but I'd like to know more about the film than who provided the editing and cinematography, so after introducing the main actors, I would actually describe the film.
- Done
- " creates a fake political setup for his father who recovers from a coma" this is a very succinct plot synopsis, I don't really get it at all.
- I've elaborated the plot as per your advice. Further details about the film's production, if included, may increase the lead's size i opine.
- You repeat his full name every time, his own article reverts to Mahesh after the intro.
- Removed full name and delinked it in the lead except for the first mention.
- " ₹" is overlinked.
- Then, kindly suggest me how to denote that the budget and gross are Indian rupees in an apt way.
- I just said it was overlinked, not that you shouldn't use the symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, kindly let me know what to do?
- Unlink the symbol the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, how can we mention that the budget is in Indian currency?
- Leave the first symbol linked and unlink the second. You link the symbol twice in the same sentence. It's called overlinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Delinked INR and also, removed the conversion rate i.e. replaced {{INRConvert}} template with {{INR}}. I hope that it does solve the issue.
- Leave the first symbol linked and unlink the second. You link the symbol twice in the same sentence. It's called overlinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, how can we mention that the budget is in Indian currency?
- Unlink the symbol the second time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, kindly let me know what to do?
- I just said it was overlinked, not that you shouldn't use the symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, kindly suggest me how to denote that the budget and gross are Indian rupees in an apt way.
- "forty-four awards from fifty-six" MOSNUM would prescribe 44 from 56.
- Cowlibob fixed it.
- If awards aren't even notable enough for a red link, why are they included?
- I've explained the same to Cowlibob during resolving his comments.
- I don't think that's a reasonable explanation. If the award is notable within Wikipedia guidelines it should be redlinked, if it is not, it should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Redlinked them. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 07:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a reasonable explanation. If the award is notable within Wikipedia guidelines it should be redlinked, if it is not, it should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained the same to Cowlibob during resolving his comments.
- How does Category sort? I get Best Actor, then "Best Actor (Jury)" then "Best Actor - Telugu" (WP:DASH fail there, by the way), then "Best Actor in a Supporting Role" then .... then "Best Actor – Male"... it's not clear how this sorts at all. I would suggest you force a reasonable sort using the {{sort}} template.
- This doesn't appear to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see an Indian FL where Category is sorted. Since the recipients and nominated are sorted, i see no particular reason to sort a category. If they are indeed sorted, please provide an example for the same.
- Then the column should not be sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean to add class="unsortable" to all the coloumns except Recipients and Nominees?
- Well that's your decision, all I'm saying is that right now, the Category column sorts unintuitively. Either fix it, or make the column unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Okay. I'm unsorting all coloumns except "Recipients and Nominees". Once i find a featured list that sorts categories, even though that happens after this list passes or fails, i will gladly and surely apply the same here.
- Well that's your decision, all I'm saying is that right now, the Category column sorts unintuitively. Either fix it, or make the column unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean to add class="unsortable" to all the coloumns except Recipients and Nominees?
- Then the column should not be sortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see an Indian FL where Category is sorted. Since the recipients and nominated are sorted, i see no particular reason to sort a category. If they are indeed sorted, please provide an example for the same.
- This doesn't appear to have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why "FEFSI Vijayan" and not just "Vijayan"?
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed it. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But urge you to stub the red linked awards. Otherwise their notability looks questionable for inclusion!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 16:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
You cannot presume that there could be a jury, so, yes it's as notable as the NFA or FF. Currently the link redirects to The Times of India. Also, in FLCs we shouldn't base arguments based on WP:OSE. —Vensatry (ping) 17:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (ping) 05:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: This list is Well-written, and from my POV meets the FL criteria. Good job Pavan.Krish | Talk 19:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, comprehensive and the references all check out fine. This definitely meets the FL criteria. Good job on the work so far! JAGUAR 17:49, 29 September 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) 18:37, 4 October 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 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a featured list from September 2007 to this May, when it was rightly delisted for having an old format and poorly sourced information. After getting back into the governor list groove, I've taken the time to upgrade the format to include a term column (much superior to the previous style of percentages to indicate shared terms) and a portrait column (since we now have enough portraits to fill most of it out).
I also was bold and removed the living governor list (I can speak only for myself but I see this as excessive trivia that has no real world import) and the 'other high offices held' list, which I found to be difficult to maintain. It requires a bit of clunky prose, and ends up being a bit subjective. My personal rules were: Congressional offices, high executive offices, cabinet, district court or higher appointments, and ambassadorships. However, this would leave out certain things that people would be perhaps better known for, like commissioner of baseball or mayor of large cities. I will argue against replacing the living governor list, but I can easily go along with replacing the other high office list if people think it makes sense to keep.
Finally, the reason this was delisted: Data. Turns out that the best available sources on when Arkansas' governors took office disagree by a day or two for much of the state's history, so extensive verification and logical thinking had to be done to come up with the list as it is. Everything should be properly sourced now. Also, I discovered a new governor, Thomas Fletcher, which is not a sentence that often makes sense, but here we are.
It's been years since I've brought a list to FLC, so I expect my old standards are lacking, so I look forward to learning what new hotness I need to employ in this. Thank you! --Golbez (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that I'm also kind of doing this as a referendum; a new format has been brought to List of Governors of California and it includes things such as previous job, number of days in office, and the governor's birth and death dates and age. I don't like these; in order, they are subjective and not that useful (for Richard Nixon for president, would we say 'none'?); excessive trivia (it might just be me but I honestly don't understand why anyone cares); and irrelevant (their dates have nothing to do with this list. if someone wants to know them, the article is right there. including them is akin to including their wife's name, or place of birth). I seek discussion on not just this list, but it in comparison to that new format; if this list gets featured as it is then I'll work with the creator of the CA format to adapt it, and if this list doesn't get featured because of the other format being preferred, then I guess I'll stop fighting it. [And if this is absolutely the wrong place to have this discussion, please tell me where to take it. :)] --Golbez (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Object: The party is indicated with color only, which is not accessible to blind or color-blind people. If you decide to add a visible R/D, make sure it has good contrast with the background, for example, a black letter R or letter D as text and a pale red or pale blue background. Or you could add a party column, the same as the California list. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There... is a party column? --Golbez (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Golbez, I believe they mean the red that indicates Republican and the blue that indicates Democrat. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know what they mean. And there is a party column. That's my confusion. It's right there. Reads "Democratic" and sometimes "Republican". --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For the record, those tiny "party shading" (half-)columns are standard practice at U.S. politics (e.g. Pres. and Governor) lists, and at some of the Canadian elections lists too, and I really dislike them strongly. It should either be a full separate column, with written "R" & "D" (or "Rep" & "Dem") labels, or we really shouldn't bother! So this isn't just a problem with this Arkansas Governor article, but with U.S. politics lists articles in general. (I think someone tried to fix this at List of Presidents of the United States a few months back, but got voted down IIRC...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a column. With labels. I'm very confused how people aren't seeing this. The color bars are simply for added illustration (and shouldn't have text over them). That way it's easy to see party control over time without having to scan for words. It also makes it easier to see Lt Governor parties, who don't get their own party column. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean by this is that it's not a separate 'Party' column with "R" & "D" labels included right there in the cells. I find the way this has been handled at the U.S. politics lists to be highly... inelegant. I understand that they've been this way forever, and there's a lot of inertial support for them, but I strongly prefer the way this is handled at, say, List of Alberta general elections or List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows used to be entirely colored. Then we went to the color bars. I find that more elegant than coloring in the party column, I don't like (and in many cases it runs afoul of accessibility) having text over color. I look at those articles and I want to split the winner column into one with a color bar and the party name. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to me like it might be the best ultimate "solution" for these articles – move the party-colors "half-column" over to be with the 'Party' label column, rather that the awkward way it's currently included with the officeholder's name. But I'd better drop this here, as this discussion has less to do with this specific FL nominee, than it does with a discussion that maybe should be held about the entire "suite" of these articles... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The rows used to be entirely colored. Then we went to the color bars. I find that more elegant than coloring in the party column, I don't like (and in many cases it runs afoul of accessibility) having text over color. I look at those articles and I want to split the winner column into one with a color bar and the party name. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see what you mean!... OK, what I'm saying is I'd prefer that the party "colors" should be moved over to that column. (Something would have to be worked out for the Lt. Gov. column too...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that is certainly possible, though then we have the odd construction of color/party/color/name (due to lieutenant governor). Putting the color bar on the left gives people a quick look at the party before scanning to the middle of the table, and balances the color bars out. --Golbez (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean by this is that it's not a separate 'Party' column with "R" & "D" labels included right there in the cells. I find the way this has been handled at the U.S. politics lists to be highly... inelegant. I understand that they've been this way forever, and there's a lot of inertial support for them, but I strongly prefer the way this is handled at, say, List of Alberta general elections or List of post-confederation Prince Edward Island general elections. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a column. With labels. I'm very confused how people aren't seeing this. The color bars are simply for added illustration (and shouldn't have text over them). That way it's easy to see party control over time without having to scan for words. It also makes it easier to see Lt Governor parties, who don't get their own party column. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Golbez, I believe they mean the red that indicates Republican and the blue that indicates Democrat. — Maile (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "Orval Faubus served the longest term as state governor, being elected six times to serve twelve years. Bill Clinton, elected five times over two distinct terms, fell only one month short of twelve years." I was puzzled at the six and five terms. I think you need to leave it out or explain that the term was changed to four years during Clinton's governorship.
- "so there was a single line of governors, though as the state fell to Union forces there was a loyalist government put in place with an insignificant Confederate government in exile." This seems to me confusing. Perhaps something like "but when the state fell to Union forces in 1863, the Confederate governor maintained an ineffective government in exile until 1865, while a Union governor was appointed in 1864."
- "Murphy was elected provisional governor by a loyalist government set up after Union control of the state was established". This is a bit vague. Did the US President appoint a government which chose the governor until the state was re-admitted to the Union in 1868?
- A fine list. Just a few minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 2 months without sufficient support, so closing this nomination as not passed. --PresN 21:29, 6 November 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 PresN 16:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [10].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already have one FLC nomination of the national nature reserves in Somerset, which has three supports and I believe "reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". This is a companion list covering all of the local nature reserves in the county.— Rod talk 10:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments per your request on my talkpage, apologies for not getting back to you sooner...
That's it for a quick onceover. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "The smallest at just 0.53 hectares (1.3 acres) is Wellington Basins where a series of small ponds and surrounding grassland and woodland which provide a habitat for grey wagtail, dipper and reed bunting." This sentence does not seem grammatical.
- Reworded.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are adjacent to each other in Uphill and are sometimes treated as a single site covering 38.14 hectares (94.2 acres)." Uphill Hill and Walborough Common should be linked. Also the sentence is not referenced (here and in the descriptions of the sites). Who treats it as a single site?
- As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed.— Rod talk 20:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparing the LNR and SSSI maps, the SSSI is only half the size, 19 hectares, so partly coterminous might be more accurate than largely. It looks as if Walborough also covers a small part of Severn Estuary SSSI, but you may not think this is not worth mentioning. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to edit following your suggestions, but could you take another look?— Rod talk 19:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is quite right. You need to explain that you are using a different source for the Uphill and Walborough areas and you have not referenced the last sentences in the descriptions. How about 1. Add at the beginning of note a "Unless otherwise stated," 2. Delete notes e and f. 3. Add one note to both the Uphill and Walborough areas using {{efn|name=x|. "The areas of Uphill Hill and Walborough Common are not given by NE as although there are separate information pages for the sites, the map shows them as a single site with an area of 38 hectares. The areas for these sites are based on Somerset site..., which states that Uphill has an area of 17 hectares, which leaves 21 for Walborough. Refs Somerset site and Magic map. 4. Ref for the descriptions Uphill Magic map, and for the statement that Uphill LNR and SSSI are largely coterminous the Somerset site. Does this make sense? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I have tried to amend in line with your suggestions.— Rod talk 07:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to me a technical detail not worth mentioning in the main text - let alone three times. I would add an efn note to the two reserves stating that NE has separate details pages but one map covering both sites. I see above you got no response emailing NE. I find that surprising as they were very good at dealing with my queries about London and Hertfordshire and corrected a number of errors. (Others they never corrected, presumably because they were unable to get the information from the boroughs.) Perhaps you could try phoning them? You can get the area from this Somerset page, which says that Uphill is 17 hectares, so presumably the rest is Walborough. The page also says that Uphill is an SSSI. There is an SSSI called Uphill Cliff and you could check the maps to see whether they are the same. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As discussed above the MAGIC government mapping site treats it as one reserve, (see this map) while Natural England has two separate data sheets. I am unsure how best to present this.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "This reserve covers unimproved neutral grassland" No change needed but I wish someone competent would create an article on neutral grassland. There is even a category for neutral grassland SSSIs!
- "The dunes, west of the village of Berrow, has a golf course, and is a noted site". "has" and "is" do not agree in number with "dunes"
- " A 200 hectares (490 acres) area was designated in 1952 as a SSSI." Presumably the 16.7 hectare LNR is part of the SSSI, but this should be spelled out.
- Added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The site includes beech trees up to 200 years old. There are also oak and hazel. It provides a habitat for birds including blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws and small mammals." This reads a bit awkwardly. How about "The site has beech trees up to 200 years old, oaks and hazels. Birds include blackbirds, woodpeckers, goldcrests and jackdaws, and there are small mammals such as badgers and foxes."
- Thanks - I have used your suggested wording.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It includes the bath asparagus". This does not sound right to me. Maybe "Plants include bath asparagus."
- Changed.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Chard Reservoir. Ref 19 appears to be a dead link as it goes to the Keep Britain Tidy home page. I would add that Chard Canal closed in 1868 to make clear that the reservoir has not been active for 150 years.
- Archiveurl used. Closure of canal added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "This reserve includes a hill fort dating from the Iron Age on Wain's Hill and Church Hill. It includes calcareous grassland, coastal scrub and woodland" Repetition of "includes". The second one could be changed to "has".
- Changed.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The lakes are the centrepiece of the one mile long[44] nature reserve which includes dry woodland which has a ground flora including common bluebell, dogs mercury and twayblade." This is awkward with the repetition of "which". I would split the sentence into two.
- Split.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "rhyne" should be linked.
- Wikilinked.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add the list of Somerset SSSIs to 'See also'.
- Added.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I think they are dealt with apart from the issue with Uphill Hill and Walborough Common on which I would welcome your thoughts.— Rod talk 18:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jakec
- "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir"...should be "36.97-hectare (91.4-acre) reservoir". Use the adj=on parameter in the convert template.
- Done.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I had missed a "|" within the convert template.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It still reads "A 36.97 hectares (91.4 acres) reservoir". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also in the Chard Reservoir section, three consecutive sentences begin with "it". Perhaps rephrase and/or merge a couple of the shorter sentences?- Reworded.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a comma after "Following the route of the Cheddar Valley Line" and also "Alongside the River Tone"- Commas added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Woodland and grassland support a range of bird species" isn't grammatically correct; should be "supporting" or "that supports".- Changed to "that supports".— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The grassy plateau of the hill fort is owned and managed by Yatton and Congresbury Parish Councils." should be referenced.- Ref added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the Berrow Dunes section is unreferenced.- Refs added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the Street Heath section needs a period.- Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." - try maybe adding an "also".
- Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification - got it now.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually mant "There area also a variety of birds, bats, reptiles and invertebrates." --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.— Rod talk 17:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that four entries don't have articles of their own. Can this be rectified?- Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. As long as there aren't that many, and they do link somewhere, it's not a 5a violation. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of them (more than four I think) link to the geography sections of larger articles about parishes/villages. These are generally small reserves which I am not sure they would meet the GNG on their own but are a significant part of their locality.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 6 is dead
- Linkrot fixed.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Archiveurl & archivedate added.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see a page saying only "This Account Has Been Suspended". It's now ref 5, titled "Ash Priors Common". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Linkrot fixed.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 14 appears to come from Geocities. Is it an RS?- I can't find another source for this so removed - not vital to the nature reserve.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 20 looks like a personal site. Is it an RS?
- I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with a site from the local council.— Rod talk 17:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is now ref 21, " "Chard Reservoir Nature Reserve". --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:40, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure which one you are referring to as refs have been added and removed. Can you give hint as to which one this relates to?— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting list, and I look forward to supporting once these are addressed. Would you by any chance have time to review Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_tributaries_of_Shamokin_Creek/archive1? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I will try to take a look at Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk 18:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by the looks of it, the previous reviewers have covered everything; I can't find anything to fault. This has also reminded me that I still owe you a photo for Silk Mills, I'll jot that down! Harrias talk 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:27, 26 October 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 21:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been improving this article over the past couple of weeks, and feel that it is now ready for FLC. It's inspired heavily by the equivalent singles list, which was promoted to FL back in November 2013. I welcome any ways in which it might be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Mind leaving some comments here? -- Frankie talk 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all of my queries have been answered. -- Frankie talk 15:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much, Frankie! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Johanna
Hello! This looks like a very great list. Just a few comments (feel free to discuss these with me)
- "The most successful artist of the decade was…22 weeks at number one with nine different albums." If possible, could this be sourced? Unless you think it's unnecessary per WP:LEADCITE, I would cite them.
- I can't find any source that states this explicitly, but each individual week can be cited from the Official Charts Company. My thinking was based on WP:CALC, which says that routine calculations (such as adding up all the weeks that an album was at number one) don't count as original research. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of February 2015, the UK Album Download Chart continues to be published each week by the OCC." Why is this relevant to this article?
- I dunno, it just seemed that, since I've devoted so much of the lead to discuss how and why the chart was founded, it might be relevant to discuss whether it's still being compiled today. If you think it's out of place, I'll remove it. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the "by artist" and "by record label" sections be cited?
- Same kind of argument as above (i.e. WP:CALC). They just felt like the sorts of things that a person could reasonably expect to want to know from reading this article. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@A Thousand Doors: This is a nicely compiled list. Once again, you can discuss any of these with me that you want. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the review, Johanna! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues I can spot. A good and very solidly constructed article. Miyagawa (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How embarrassing... I'd completely forgotten that I'd even nominated this. Thank you for the support, Miyagawa! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – About the only thing I see that is worth commenting upon is the presence of a few "noun + -ing" sentence structures in the lead. I see "with a further 825,000 being downloaded during the first three months of 2006" in the second paragraph and a couple more in the third. Try to fix a couple of these if possible. Otherwise, it looks to be in fine shape.Giants2008 (Talk) 03:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Think I've got them all. Thanks a lot for the review, Giants2008! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – You did get them all. As I said earlier, I thought the list was just about ready for FL, and I think it's there now. Nice job on the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, Giants2008! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – You did get them all. As I said earlier, I thought the list was just about ready for FL, and I think it's there now. Nice job on the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've got them all. Thanks a lot for the review, Giants2008! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as passed. Remember that the best way to ensure that future nominations move through the pipeline as fast as possible is to review other editor's nominations! --PresN 21:28, 6 November 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 18:17, 4 October 2015 [11].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The post of Poet laureate has officially been in existence since 1668 and the appointment of John Dryden, although it had its origin in 1616 when the writer Ben Jonson was granted a royal pension. The last couple of appointees have been on fixed ten-year terms, but prior to that it was a lifetime appointment, with the exception of Dryden, who was sacked on religious grounds. This has had a recent re-write to bring it into line of MoS requirements. Any and all comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I am strongly against including birth/death ranges in lists like this, as it adds nothing to the list itself.
- I think it does add something, but I take your point. I'll leave it in there for the moment, but should others agree that the information is pointless, I'll remove it. Does that sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible to get specific dates of laureateship? At least for the modern ones, with better recordkeeping?
- Yes, I don't see why not - let me see what can be added. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't it simply be "Victoria" rather than "Queen Victoria"?
- Yep - Now done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am strongly against including birth/death ranges in lists like this, as it adds nothing to the list itself.
- The list seems generally sound, though perhaps a bit sparse... But I struggle to think of additional data to add to it. --Golbez (talk) 08:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean on the sparseness! I mulled over a few extra bits, but they really were pointless and would only have been included to pad out the table. Thanks for your thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
In the "background section:
Will all readers understand "purview" - it would consider the award of the post to be Royal Patronage.I had to read the sentence "Since 1790, and the appointment of Henry James Pye, the Prime Minister has recommended the candidate to appoint" three times to make sense of it.In one paragraph we have "Department for Culture, Media and Sport" and in the next "Department of Culture" I get that they are referring to the same department but non UK readers may not.
In the list:
If you sort by Birth and death date column, Thomas Shadwell comes out of sequence I think because of the "c." in the birth date.Would it be possible to include a photo of Cecil Day-Lewis rather than the blue plaque or is this a "fair use" issue?
- Sadly (and annoyingly) it's a fair use thing, so the plaque is the best we can do, unfortunately. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only data I can think of to add is a sortable list of their length of tenure in the post.
- Good idea: I'll add that in the morning. – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hope these are helpful.— Rod talk 19:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Rod! All much appreciated; I've tweaked it all per your recommendations, bar the last two -
one of which I'll do shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] - All now done. Cheers Rod. - SchroCat (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the amendments. I can now support this as meeting the criteria.— Rod talk 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, Rod, for your time and thoughts here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent list. Just one thing:
"Dryden's successor, Thomas Shadwell, was appointed for life. He introduced the custom of producing poems for the new year and the monarch's birthday, which became one of the key duties of the position." -is it worth mentioning a date of when appointed or introduced?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:07, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Doc - your thoughts and comments are much appreciated. I've added the date of Shadwell's appointment in the text as suggested. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This is what we used to call in Latin lessons, fifty years ago, a "question expecting the answer no", but are there any poems by any of the Laureates written in their official capacity that are good enough, or well enough known, to be mentioned in the lead? That would be the only thing I could think to add to this comprehensive and classily presented page. Tim riley talk 14:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought (sorry) – perhaps swapping the last two sentences of the first para would remove any momentary thought that Ms Duffy only got the post because Messrs Gray, Rogers and Scott turned it down. Tim riley talk 14:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the second point; I think there may well be something I could add on this point.
- Many thanks for your thoughts on this, and I'll address your first point once I get back to the sources. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 21 September 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) 18:38, 4 October 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 16:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]
- Nominator(s): --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my second attempt at the Featured List process. It details all twelve named tributaries of Shamokin Creek, a 32.4-mile-long creek that is badly affected by acid mine drainage. This list of tributaries of Shamokin Creek draws heavily on List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek in terms of style and content; I believe that this list meets the FLC criteria for the same reasons that my last FLC does. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 15:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice article, I think the lead needs a bit of cleaning though. Here is my first pass review:
- The river length, and number of tributaries should be sourced (sentence one and three)
- Technically, it's just data derived from the tables below, but okay.
- The smallest and largest tributary should be mentioned by name as well as number in sentence two.
- Done.
- Perhaps a short phrase should be included telling the reader the difference between a run and a creek? Are they just names?
- A run generally smaller than a creek, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule (for instance, Carbon Run is larger than Lick Creek). They're linked to relevant sections of the stream article, though (this was suggested back during the Catawissa Creek tributaries FLC).
- The last sentence of the lead is a little redundant, since you already talk about the longest tributary, perhaps you can have a largest/smallest watershed focus here? (with names and numbers?)
- It's not entirely redundant since that sentence lists the five largest watersheds instead of just the largest. I wouldn't be averse to doing this, except that Little Shamokin Creek and Furnace Run are also the largest and smallest tributaries by watershed area, which would make it sound a bit odd. I instead just removed the sentence listing the shortest and longest tributary.
"by mining, the only exception being Furnace Run" -> "by mining with the expection of Furance Run"
- Fixed.
- "Various mine drainage sites occur in the watersheds of all other streams in this part of the watershed." What part of the watershed? The one of Furnace Run? Needs to be made clear.
- Fixed.
Remove "however", not really needed here.
- Fixed.
- "are not designated as impaired waterbodies" needs a source. As does the next sentence.
- I thought that even featured content did not need a citation after every sentence. There is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.
Remove second "however", also not really needed.
- Done.
"Warmwater Fishery"... source doesn't contain this word
- Dozens of sources make this connection. I personally don't think it's necessary since "WWF" clearly means "Warmwater Fishery", but if you want, I can find one of the many random sources that say so and stick it in.
- This is fine, I didn't know wwf meant warmwater fishery.
- "North Branch Shamokin Creek and Quaker Run, lack fish life."... needs source
- As above, there is a source at or before the end of the paragraph.
- Third "However" also needs to be removed.
- I think I'd rather keep this one for aesthetic reasons.
These are all suggestions and open to debate. Mattximus (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I was going to ask you, but now I don't have to --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No prob, I'll likely support soon but I'll review it once more tomorrow just to make sure the prose is ok and finish checking your changes. Mattximus (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, here is my second pass:
- Should "abandoned mine drainage" be linked to Acid mine drainage instead? Also "organic enrichment" should be linked to Eutrophication. I believe these are the correct terms, but please let me know if I am wrong.
- I've linked organic enrichment to eutrophication. Acid mine drainage is a subset of abandoned mine drainage. Acid mine drainage is what most or all of the AMD-impaired tributaries of Shamokin Creek are affected by, but the source only specifies abandoned mine drainage, I think.
- "have supported healthy communities of aquatic life" or do you mean "support healthy communities of aquatic life"?
- The source says that they historically supported aquatic life, but that makes it sound like they don't anymore (which may or may not be true). "have supported" seemed like a reasonable middle ground.
Other than that it looks good! I will Support pending those changes/clarifications. Mattximus (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Responded. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this is a BLATANT example of 3.b violation. Only 12 tributaries for a 50km long creek can be EASILY included in the parent article. Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An identical argument was rejected by the FLC delegates on an extremely similar FLC several months ago. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal put your money where your mouth is, either nominate this, and the other list you disliked, at AFD, or stop complaining. Otherwise your edits are currently coming across as extremely disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- EXCEPT that that list had 26 entries, so technically it was more difficult to include that into the parent article. This list is less than half that length and barely above the informal ~10 entries threshold that we generally agree/allow lists to go as FL. Even if the list itself is decided by some incredibly shallow reason to be notable enough, it still CAN EASILY be included in the parent article, without major revamping of that one. Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And TRM, I am pretty sure that on average your comments are more "extremely disruptive" and drive people away from this volunteer-based project than mine are. Nergaal (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm honestly baffled as to why you're so vehemently opposing this when even you admit it's above the threshold for FL. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal made the exact same argument, citing the same criteria during one of my featured list noms and made me almost want to quit editing all together. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry to hear that, keep up your good work! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal made the exact same argument, citing the same criteria during one of my featured list noms and made me almost want to quit editing all together. Mattximus (talk) 14:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to list your rational arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek. Nergaal (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: Would you be able to proceed with the review now that this has been (speedily) kept? Thanks. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 00:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I don't find that the photos of the tributaries really add anything to an understanding of them. A lot of brown clear water surrounded by trees; a dime a dozen. Useful on their own pages, but here they unnecessarily lengthen the table, and it's filled with 90% whitespace as a result. What WOULD enhance understanding would be if they were instead maps of each tributary.
- Personally, I think the images add more than maps. They help one get a sense for the general environment each stream is in, whether it's affected by acid mine drainage, and roughly how large each one is. None of which could be done with a simple map. Finally, and this is just my opinion, they're more visually interesting than a map. I can't argue with all the whitespace, but it wasn't an issue in my other FLC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, well, considering the pollution issue, I guess I can be fine with images. I still think maps would be useful as well though. :) --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: Anything else that must be addressed before you support? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- With the statement that I would prefer maps be added, I can't hold it up based on my desire for lots more labor to be put into an already quality list, so Support. :) --Golbez (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: Anything else that must be addressed before you support? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, well, considering the pollution issue, I guess I can be fine with images. I still think maps would be useful as well though. :) --Golbez (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think the images add more than maps. They help one get a sense for the general environment each stream is in, whether it's affected by acid mine drainage, and roughly how large each one is. None of which could be done with a simple map. Finally, and this is just my opinion, they're more visually interesting than a map. I can't argue with all the whitespace, but it wasn't an issue in my other FLC. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 11:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the coordinates those of where the tributary meets the creek? If so, the column header should have a note specifying that. --Golbez (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- I don't find that the photos of the tributaries really add anything to an understanding of them. A lot of brown clear water surrounded by trees; a dime a dozen. Useful on their own pages, but here they unnecessarily lengthen the table, and it's filled with 90% whitespace as a result. What WOULD enhance understanding would be if they were instead maps of each tributary.
Comments
- Because I have no idea where " Susquehanna River " is, I suggest you put that into context before telling me how many named tributaries it has.
- I think you're saying that there's a misplaced modifier, which has been fixed.
- No, what I'm saying is tell me where Susequehanna River is in the context of the globe before telling me how many named tribs it has. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohhh. I get what you're driving at. See this edit. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The longest are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and North Branch Shamokin Creek, while the tributaries with the largest watersheds are Little Shamokin Creek, Carbon Run, and Coal Run." feels a little "meh", two of the three tribs are repeated.
- Okay, I changed it to just list the five longest tributaries.
- Don't like the structure of the tables, I would merge them and add a note saying that the Plum Creek is a sub-trib.
- Done.
- I did do this, but I am having second thoughts about it. If a reader doesn't pay close attention, they might get the impression that Plum Creek is a direct tributary of Shamokin Creek. I'd rather have it as it was (that's also how it was done in List_of_tributaries_of_Catawissa_Creek#Tributaries_of_Messers_Run). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " in the tributary Carbon Run" no need for tributary here.
- Done.
- " the tributary Trout Run" similar.
- Done.
- "by local sportsmen" how are you classifying those responsible for the maintenance of a hatchery as "sportsmen"?
- Hmm? The way I understood it, the fact that they maintain a hatchery doesn't make them sportsmen; they are just sportsmen who happen to maintain a hatchery. The actual wording in the source is "A local sportsman club maintains a small hatchery on Trout Run near its confluence with Shamokin Creek".
- Just currently reads odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm open to other suggestions for the wording. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would remove the reference to the sportsmen, it's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we'll have to disagree on this one, as I don't think it's doing much harm and don't really see how it's a problem. The fact that it's a group of sportsmen doesn't mean that they don't do anything but sports. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for image column to be sortable.
- Done.
- Where no image exists, add a centrally aligned en-dash.
- Done.
- "p. 34,45,48,66,85,90-91,100,106,116,143," spaces, and should be pp.
- Done.
- Not done, spaces between page numbers please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, hadn't noticed that part. Now done. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: Responded, thanks for getting back to me. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what makes you think Abandoned mine drainage will ever be an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a broad term for any polluted water that comes out of a mine [13]. I wasn't planning on writing an article on it myself, but I could make a quick stub perhaps. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How many pages link to that red link? Is it a realistic target? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nineteen. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing, but are they all articles written by you? If you seriously believe this topic isn't covered elsewhere, you should write a stub, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: It seems that I did write 17 of them myself and expanded the other 2 by a lot. Anyway, Abandoned mine drainage is blue now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm guessing, but are they all articles written by you? If you seriously believe this topic isn't covered elsewhere, you should write a stub, at least. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nineteen. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How many pages link to that red link? Is it a realistic target? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw An interesting list, however so far outside my knowledge base I'd appreciate a little clarification:
Could/should the names of the tributaries which are wikilinked in the table by wikilinked in the lead on 1st usage?
- Done.
Who designates rivers as "impaired waterbodies", is there a quality control agency & how is that defined?
- Clarified.
Should "channelization" ( a term I've never come across before) be wikilinked to River engineering#Channelization?
- Done.
In the table is "Distance from Mouth" (which is wikilinked to River mile) the distance to the mouth of the tributary and how is this different to length? I've read "The river mile is not the same as the length of the river, rather it is a means of locating any feature along the river relative to its distance from the mouth, when measured along the course (or navigable channel) of the river" but I still don't understand the difference.
- The river mile simply indicates how far upstream of the mouth of Shamokin Creek is the confluence of a given tributary. For instance, it's 2.58 miles from the mouth of Little Shamokin Creek to the mouth of Shamokin Creek, and this has nothing to do with the length of Little Shamokin Creek.
- Perhaps this should say "Distance from mouth of Shamokin Creek" or similar?— Rod talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if making the "Mouth Coordinates" sortable is going to be any use to anyone reading it.
- Okay. Done.
Note 1 includes an external link (to Chapter 93 of the Pennsylvania code) could this be turned into a reference?
- I don't think it's possible to next ref tags in that manner, at least using conventional reference methods. I've seen it done in a few places, but I've got no idea how it works.
- If you look at List of local nature reserves in Somerset which you've just kindly reviewed & look at notes d & e you will see how this can be done.— Rod talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 1 to the National Map Viewer takes me to various map sources of the USA, but being from the other side of the Atlantic I wouldn't even know how to find Pennsylvania. Would it be possible to link to a specific map or area?
Ref 3 (Watershed restoration...) doesn't have a publisher - looking at the document it appears to be "DEP Bureau of Watershed Management" but what is DEP?
- Added publisher.
Some of these may be because of my lack of understanding of US terminology and regulatory systems, but there could be other readers worldwide who might need a little more explanation as well.— Rod talk 19:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: Thank you very much for the review. I believe I have addressed your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing the changes.— Rod talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: I made the changes, but somehow forgot to hit 'save page'. Try now, I've also fixed the notes section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I see the changes now. I've struck most of them except the column header "Distance...". I've also just noticed Ref 6 (Gazetteer of streams) doesn't have a publisher.— Rod talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: Personally, I think that your suggestion would be a bit too unwieldy for a column header. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I din't understand what it meant and therefore others may not. If it is too many words for a column header a note could be used to explain that it is distance from the mouth of Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk
- @Rodw: Done. (though I don't think it really helps anything). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the link to Main stem is that useful - certainly not a phrase I'm familiar with - but after looking at the article on it wouldn't Susquehanna River be the man stem in this case?— Rod talk
- @Rodw: Fine. Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for changing the column header. I still see Ref 6 - Gazetteer of Streams without a publisher.— Rod talk 18:49, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: Fine. Done now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the link to Main stem is that useful - certainly not a phrase I'm familiar with - but after looking at the article on it wouldn't Susquehanna River be the man stem in this case?— Rod talk
- @Rodw: Done. (though I don't think it really helps anything). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I din't understand what it meant and therefore others may not. If it is too many words for a column header a note could be used to explain that it is distance from the mouth of Shamokin Creek.— Rod talk
- @Rodw: Personally, I think that your suggestion would be a bit too unwieldy for a column header. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks I see the changes now. I've struck most of them except the column header "Distance...". I've also just noticed Ref 6 (Gazetteer of streams) doesn't have a publisher.— Rod talk 07:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: I made the changes, but somehow forgot to hit 'save page'. Try now, I've also fixed the notes section. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing the changes.— Rod talk 20:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rodw: Thank you very much for the review. I believe I have addressed your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 20:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Because the sources don't give the hundredths I asked for, I can't blame the list for not including them. My comments have all been responded to, and I'm comfortable that the list meets FL criteria, and that it merits its own article since the AfD closed as a keep. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 16:53, 9 October 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 18:17, 4 October 2015 [14].
- Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have completely reworked this list to now include more statistical data than anyone really needs. I've also tried to standardize formatting to be consistent with other local administrative lists (modelled after List of cities and towns in California). Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jakec
Very nice list, here are a few comments.
"These 460 incorporated cities and towns" is a bit repetitive since the previous sentence also uses very similar wording. Suggest shortening to "The cities and towns".Done"Thirty-four cities are Class 6" "Forty cities are Class 7": I think numbers above 10 are supposed to be written in numerical form and either way, sentences shouldn't begin with a number.DoneFor reference 2, is there a link that shows the actual query results?
- The link actually pipes to the Alabama list, but then redirects back to the main page. I suspect this particular reference does not allow direct linking unfortunately.
- Okay.
- A few towns appear to be missing 2000 census data; some have an explanation and some don't.
- I agree that this is a problem. I have tried to add all notes that I could, but some I just could not find. I asked the wikiproject for Alabama and the USA, but none could help me on this. Here I am stuck. I suspect they were simply incorporated after the 2000 census, but can't find a source to confirm this. Any advice?
- I'd say if you can't find any sources to confirm that they weren't incorporated, then just leave it as it is now. I checked the first one I saw (Kellyton) and was unable to find anything.
For Anderson, the change in population reads "−20.3}}" and is at the top of the list when sorted by population change in descending order.Done
- I think it was supposed to be {{nts|-20.3}}, not {{-20.3}}, so I've fixed that.
Millbrook doesn't have population density.DoneNotes d and e have some stray formatting.DoneI realize this is a lot of work, so I won't insist on it, but a column for elevation would be nice. I think you can use the GNIS for that.
- I considered this, but left it out for a few reasons. The first, is that it would hamper the formatting by making the table too wide, and second that I'm trying to standardize all such lists, and the altitude is not generally included. The most important reason is that I think the list should remain focused on the human aspect (population, density, arbitrary areas...) and not the geological aspects, which would do well with it's own list. Generally, the best lists have a narrow focus and try not to include everything.
- Fair enough.
--Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, they are greatly appreciated and I have tried to address them all above. Please let me know if there is any more changes you would suggest. Mattximus (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a good list, and my concerns have been addressed. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 18:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThis seems to be a problem, but I'm not very sure. When I click "Density" in the list, looks like something not right. But I click land area, population, change, they all seems fine.--Jarodalien (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right! That's odd... I do not know how to fix that... Mattximus (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be a browser issue. Density works for me as it should in both Firefox 40.0.3 and IE 11.— Maile (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I commented, but apparently not. I know what the problem is: the data isn't raw numbers, so it's being sorted as strings and thus 1000 comes "before" 200. You should be able to fix this by using the {{sort}} template, so that {{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|0173.0|{{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}} and {{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|1005.8|{{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}}. I'm not sure if there's a more elegant way to do this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked at the template help page, which is usually very fast to respond, to see if there is a more elegant solution. Thanks for pointing out the error! Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added
data-sort-type="number"
to the Density column header per Help:Sorting#Numerical sorting problems.[15] PrimeHunter (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added
- I asked at the template help page, which is usually very fast to respond, to see if there is a more elegant solution. Thanks for pointing out the error! Mattximus (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought I commented, but apparently not. I know what the problem is: the data isn't raw numbers, so it's being sorted as strings and thus 1000 comes "before" 200. You should be able to fix this by using the {{sort}} template, so that {{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|0173.0|{{Pop density|2688|15.54|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}} and {{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}} becomes {{sort|1005.8|{{Pop density|6397|6.36|sqmi|km2|prec=1}}}}. I'm not sure if there's a more elegant way to do this. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This could be a browser issue. Density works for me as it should in both Firefox 40.0.3 and IE 11.— Maile (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right! That's odd... I do not know how to fix that... Mattximus (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Golbez (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro needs some TLC.
- Can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An example "237) [5]"
- Added that period. Also rewrote that section to hopefully make it more clear.
- So is there a Class 1 city or no (Birmingham)?
- An IP user recently added this section to the lead, I cleaned up the citation but will have to do further research to confirm this is true. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure the table is consistent
- Done
- Make sure the table is consistent
- An IP user recently added this section to the lead, I cleaned up the citation but will have to do further research to confirm this is true. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Move the pics out of the way so the table shows without a ton of whitespace.
- I believe this is an issue with your screen resolution and not with the formatting, as this is the accepted format of all featured list of local governments. For example, try these and see if you have the same formatting issue:List of cities and towns in California, List of municipalities in Ontario, List of municipalities in Manitoba, List of cities and towns in Arizona... Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a statistics section (i.e. summary of no of entries by class?).
- This is summarized in the lead. I'm not sure how you would like it displayed differently. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally like some form of stats after loooong tables. Maybe say how many of the 460 are towns and how many cities.
- I added the total list to the lead, including number of towns and cities and totals. Town, city, and grand total stats for each column are found at the end of the table.
- I generally like some form of stats after loooong tables. Maybe say how many of the 460 are towns and how many cities.
- This is summarized in the lead. I'm not sure how you would like it displayed differently. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2000 pop is not referenced.
- Done. Mattximus (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Maile (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC) (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Maile
|
Support - Everything else looks fine to me. — Maile (talk) 19:18, 22 September 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) 18:38, 4 October 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 02:24, 2 November 2015 [16].
- Nominator(s): jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The ants are back. This list was previously nominated in July last year. It failed mostly because there was not enough of a consensus after more than two months, and it must be mentioned that a delegate and another editor were not comfortable with having a FLC based to such a large extent on open content (Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License; please see the first nom for details). The list looks very much the same, but has been updated. jonkerz ♠talk 20:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still retain my support from the previous nomination and everything is up to date, especially with the genera. I do have one question though - If ants that lack a metapleural gland are excluded from Formicidae, wouldn't ants such as Camponotus and Polyrhachis be excluded as well, or is this statement only discussing Armaniinae ants? In regards to the issue of using open content, I do not find it really concerning if it's from a free source that allows its redistribution. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only required to have evolved in a common ancestor (snakes and whales are both "four-footed", heh). I've tweaked the sentence slightly.
- Makes sense, your changes look good. Burklemore1 (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - supported last time, just a few small comments before I support again:
- "but overturn others — and suggest" - this shoudl either be an unspaced mdash or a spaced ndash, but not the current spaced mdash.
- Done
- " the most recently discovered subfamily.[4][1]" - reverse the order of the refs
- Done
- "All were placed in the single genus Formica..." - this sentence runs on and on with commas- rework or (better yet) split into two sentences.
- Reworded slightly
- A little out of bounds for this nomination, but it's odd that this list says that Armaniinae is a subfamily that's sometimes the family Armaniidae but there's evidence that contradicts that, but when you click through to Armaniinae it redirects to Armaniidae and says that the consensus is that interpretation. (Then the Genera and species section reverses that again.) Seems like the two should match. --PresN 00:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your concern. I had a discussion regarding this issue with another editor last year. It boils down to: 1) This list is based on AntCat's classification, which still treats the taxa as a subfamily. 2) As per LaPolla et al. (2013), this taxa should probably not be classified as a true ant as long as fossils show no evidence of a metapleural gland.
- However, listing the taxa as a subfamily in this list (along with the note explaining the situation) is imo better than excluding it, because a) AntCat is an authoritative source for ant taxonomy; cherry picking could constitute original research, and b) classifications change all the time, when AntCat updates their catalog, I'll update this article.
Support - happy to support again! --PresN 16:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! jonkerz ♠talk 18:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- The first paragraph is largely quotation of the source. I see you mention its licensing terms at the end of the references, but does this allow quotation without inline attribution NIkkimaria? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Where_to_place_attribution. But I'd also like to confirm the licensing - the given source has a copyright symbol but no information on CC status. Is there another link to verify? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher site says the journal is open access (see here). Open access journals are indeed licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the publisher site says the journal is hybrid, meaning that some articles are published as open access and others are not. But since this particular article is listed there as open access, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: Thank you for taking a look at this; Zootaxa does not make it very easy to discover which articles are open access and which are not. Can I mark this issue as resolved? For anyone who wants to confirm that the Ward article is OA, please see the third paragraph from the first nom.
- Yeah, that is what I was trying to say for that specific article. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Bayesian analyses of multi-gene data sets Leptanillinae is sister to all other ants, while the poneroids form a clade that is sister to the formicoids, but this result appears to be confounded by data artifacts." I had to read this sentence several times and I am still not sure I understand it. Does it mean that the Leptanillinae are one clade which is sister to another unnamed clade of the poneroids and the formicoids? What are data artifacts? Presumably the relationships of the Martialinae are unknown?
- Sentence rewritten with a more recent source
- I would prefer a bit less on the history of classification and some information on the history of ant's evolution. When did they first appear? When did they radiate to their current large number of species? How were they affected by the end-Cretaceous extinction?
- I have added some info in. Dudley Miles, could you do some double checks? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding the info but I have some concerns about it.
- "Prior to assuming ecological dominance, only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent (located in the Northern Hemisphere)." I would delete "Prior to assuming ecological dominance". It is not needed and has not been explained at that point. I am not clear what the second part of the sentence means. "a few primitive species were widely known" - known to whom? Does it mean that ants were then confined to the Laurasia and there were only a few widespread species?
- Tweaked.
- "Following the rise of flowering plants, ants assumed dominance by the Eocene period." This is not quite right. The rise of flowering plants was in the mid-Cretaceous and was at the same time as the emergence of the ants, not their rise to dominance, as explained in your ref 6, which links their dominance to the flowering plants' advance into tropical forests. This ref also explains what is meant by dominance in this context.
- Tweaked.
- "Some subfamilies, such as Leptanillinae and Martialinae may have diversified from early primitive ants." Did not all subfamilies evolve from early primitive ants?
- Removed.
- I think this paragraph should be in a separate section, called say "The evolution of ants" rather than in the history of classification section.
- Done.
- How about something like: "Ants first arose during the mid-Cretaceous, more than 100 million years ago, associated with the rise of flowering plants and an increase in forest ground litter.[6] The earliest known ants evolved from a lineage within the aculeate wasps, and a recent study suggests that they are a sister group of Apoidea.[7] During the Cretaceous ants were confined to the northern Laurasian supercontinent, with only a few widespread primitive species.[8] By the middle Eocene, around 50 million years ago, ants had diversified and become ecologically dominant as predators and scavengers. Ant species are less than 2% of total insect species but have one third of the biomass." This is based only on ref 6, apart from the second and third sentences. You would no doubt wish to amend/add but I hope it is some help. The Laurasia sentence needs checking to see whether my revision is correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll use your suggestion, but the changes about the Laurasia part are still correct, that is what I was trying to imply as a matter of fact.
- I have added some info in. Dudley Miles, could you do some double checks? Burklemore1 (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What does dorylomorph mean? Can it be linked?
- There's no page for the dorylomorph clade (army ants and their relatives), but I've reworked the sentence.
- I think it would be helpful to have the explanation of the dagger in the infobox as well as at the start of the list.
- Done
- You mention that Brownimeciinae was Cretaceous. You might do the same for Armaniinae. -
- Done
- "now only found in the Australian region" I think Australasian would be more accurate.
- Done
- "predominantly aboreal ants" Do you mean arboreal? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Thanks for the review, Dudley Miles. I've addressed some of the concerns, more to come.
- Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on images: While I support the list to be promoted, I'll initiate an image review so we can confirm the images are fine to use. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all images provided are from AntWeb, which allows the redistribution of the photos. All are appropriately licensed and linked.
- File:A_Formica_rufa_sideview.jpg and File:Titanomyrma gigantea 01.jpg are not from AntWeb, but the original uploaders provided appropriate licensing for their distribution. The Formica rufa image is also captioned properly.
- File:Sphecomyrma_freyi_worker_no_1_holotype_(Wilson,_Carpenter_and_Brown_1967).jpg Needs confirmation if this image can actually be redistributed, although the image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the image review, Burklemore1. I'll ask the people on Commons.
- Link: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate
- Okay, I have looked at the link and saw the image is in public domain instead? If so, then this image review is in order with no problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the recent changes, all images have been checked and can be used in the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching this!
- No worries, best of luck on promoting the list! This time it seems to be going much smoother. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching this!
- Looking at the recent changes, all images have been checked and can be used in the article. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have looked at the link and saw the image is in public domain instead? If so, then this image review is in order with no problems. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Link: commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Public domain photo used in a Featured List Candidate
- Thank you for the image review, Burklemore1. I'll ask the people on Commons.
- Note to any reviewer: I have noticed that the nominator has not been on Wikipedia for a bit, but I will email him to see if he can solve the single comment that hasn't been addressed. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Sorry for not being more responsive. Burklemore1 has graciously offered to address the final comment (which I've had some issues completing). While this is the oldest open FL nom, I'd be very grateful if the delegates could keep it open and gave Burklemore a chance to save it. jonkerz ♠talk 15:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I will send a message to some editors to see if they are willing to have a look at this and leave any comments. If they decide to support, at least we could reach consensus to promote. Burklemore1 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FunkMonk
Looks good, and I see no reason why reusing free text should be a problem, but why is there a separate clade list at the top of the article? Couldn't this info be incorporated in the main list? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean something like this? Given that the list is nested and that some subfamilies are sisters to all ants, it makes it hard to incorporate it into the main list while still making it easy to read. I think keeping it close to the 'Clades' section makes the text easier to follow. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your example there would actually be less confusing for layman readers. Now it is kind of hard to understand it in context if you don't already know about the subfamilies. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the clade list should be retained if it is going to cause further confusion by adding it into the the actual list itself. However, I will gladly join discussing other alternatives. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your example there would actually be less confusing for layman readers. Now it is kind of hard to understand it in context if you don't already know about the subfamilies. FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean something like this? Given that the list is nested and that some subfamilies are sisters to all ants, it makes it hard to incorporate it into the main list while still making it easy to read. I think keeping it close to the 'Clades' section makes the text easier to follow. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "which has generated intense scientific and public interest" Intense is too hyperbolic.
- Removed word. I'll let Jonkerz work on your other issue. Burklemore1 (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "only a few primitive species were widely known on the Laurasian supercontinent" Are widely known? I doubt anyone knew anything back then.
- Rewritten, per suggestion given above.
- "As of August 2015, 12 genera are listed as incertae sedis within Formicidae" By who? And is there even agreement on this?
- I'm not sure how to handle this, suggestions are welcome. Unless there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community, I tend to not mention it in articles (two of the incerae sedis genera are mentioned in the note section). Some options:
- Adding something like "according to AntCat", to make it explicit
- Make it less specific: "About ten genera are incertae sedis (of uncertain placement), and are not assigned to any subfamily."
- Leave it as is and let the reader follow the ref, because there's no such thing as The One True Taxonomy
- Removing the sentence (but leaving the preceding in place)
- I think #2 is the best option. Let me know what you think. jonkerz ♠talk 15:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 seems ok, and the exact dater seems irrelevant, as long as the text is up to date. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. jonkerz ♠talk 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 seems ok, and the exact dater seems irrelevant, as long as the text is up to date. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how to handle this, suggestions are welcome. Unless there is widespread disagreement within the scientific community, I tend to not mention it in articles (two of the incerae sedis genera are mentioned in the note section). Some options:
- The info in the table seems inconsistent. In for example Formiciinae, we get: "Contains the Eocene-aged fossil genus Titanomyrma, with three described species. With queens the size of a rufous hummingbird, T. giganteum and T. simillimum are the largest ants known.[25]" Yet this is not the only genus, so why so much info?
- Rewritten. jonkerz ♠talk 15:21, 30 October 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, 2 November 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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wayne Rooney and Bobby Charlton are getting their highlights highlighted here, so why not good old Terry Henry? An absolute legend of French football, top scorer and second-highest appearances, this geezer needs to be recognised for his international goal-scoring prowess. Hence the list. Thanks, as ever, to those who contribute to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- The caption doesn't need the word "has", given that he's never going to score any more
- "He surpassed the previous record, held by Michel Platini" - I would make 100% clear that this is the goalscoring record, as the most recent stat mentioned was his number of caps
- "He has scored more times against Malta" => "He scored more times against Malta"
- "More than half of Henry's goals have come" => "More than half of Henry's goals came"
- "More than half of Henry's goals have come in home matches, having scored 31 of his 51 goals in France" - the grammar is a bit mangled here, the subject of the sentence is his goals, so "having scored" isn't correct. I would suggest (also taking into account my last point ;-)) "More than half of Henry's goals came in home matches, 31 of his 51 goals being scored in France"
- "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, have come" => "The majority of Henry's goals, sixteen, came
- "Four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup saw Henry" - goals can't see. I would suggest "A tally of four goals in the 2003 FIFA Confederations Cup made Henry the tournament's top scorer and led to his being voted the "tournament's most outstanding player".
- Nowhere do you explain what the score column means, or the significance of the bolding therein. I understand it, but others might not......
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, thanks for those comments, each of which I have hopefully addressed to your satisfaction. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider having a stats table with "by competition" as at List_of_international_goals_scored_by_Wayne_Rooney. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro seems fine, but it feels like it is missing mentioning his last international goal in 2009. Also, this might be trivia-ish, but he seems to have scored only once when France lost. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the first of your comments, the second I don't find particularly helpful since France were at their best during the time he played for them, so it would be seen as to attribute too much of that success to Henry himself to frame it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be the case. Just noticed that 123 and 51 do not have actual references. I am sure there is some FIFA website referencing the totals. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added it to the sentence "During his international career he played 123 games for France in which he scored 51 goals. " Nergaal (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be the case. Just noticed that 123 and 51 do not have actual references. I am sure there is some FIFA website referencing the totals. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Addressed the first of your comments, the second I don't find particularly helpful since France were at their best during the time he played for them, so it would be seen as to attribute too much of that success to Henry himself to frame it that way. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The intro seems fine, but it feels like it is missing mentioning his last international goal in 2009. Also, this might be trivia-ish, but he seems to have scored only once when France lost. Nergaal (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 9 and 38 are missing dates and 42 seems to need "work=AFP". Nergaal (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 9 has no explicit publication date that I can see, other two addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The link has "Last updated: 27/06/2012 11:57 CET" which seemed to me to be the date, but I might be wrong. Spot-checking other refs seemed to be fine to me so support for FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please do me a favor and merge (use row-width=) the rows with multiple goals per game as was done in List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there's little point as the row merges disappear once the table is sorted in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it looks much better/cleaner. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you think to be the point. I disagree. This isn't a process where I have to follow every single one of your aesthetic suggestions, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And here I was thinking that me choosing to be pleasant and constructive to you would generate the same type of attitude from you. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done nothing other than to say thank you but I disagree and that I won't be taking up every single personal aesthetic preference of your's. I think our positions are clear, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And here I was thinking that me choosing to be pleasant and constructive to you would generate the same type of attitude from you. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you think to be the point. I disagree. This isn't a process where I have to follow every single one of your aesthetic suggestions, thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it looks much better/cleaner. Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there's little point as the row merges disappear once the table is sorted in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please do me a favor and merge (use row-width=) the rows with multiple goals per game as was done in List of international goals scored by Bobby Charlton? Nergaal (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The link has "Last updated: 27/06/2012 11:57 CET" which seemed to me to be the date, but I might be wrong. Spot-checking other refs seemed to be fine to me so support for FL. Nergaal (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Mattythewhite
Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:52, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Happy to support this now. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
|
- Support – Certainly not my area of expertise but looks good. —Vensatry (ping) 14:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
Otherwise, everything looks good. Fancy taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1 if you get a chance? Harrias talk 12:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – nice work. Harrias talk 10:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [18].
- Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is my third attempt on it for FL. Because of someone else, I got accused of a sock and this list failed. I can't let that happen again. This list has gone through a PR and now I feel it meets the criteria's. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
A decent list overall, but i want these to be fixed by the nominator/concerned within a reasonable time.
- Please make sure all the links are white here
- Will archiving them solve the problem? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Links are fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- His next venture was Black Friday (2007), a film on the... — what does a venture mean here? Is it his production, script written or directorial?
- Reworded.--Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 Spetember 2015 (UTC)
- After making the thriller That Girl in Yellow Boots (2011)... — Again, the same.
- Making Indicates he made it, which means he directed it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmmaking is such a beautiful thing, it may mislead the readers that he did produce it also. So, kindly rephrase it to directed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmmaking is such a beautiful thing, it may mislead the readers that he did produce it also. So, kindly rephrase it to directed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- he served as the creative director in the Amitabh Bachchan-starring television mini-series Yudh (2014),... — i'm of the opinion that the sentence shall look better if it ends with Yudh (2014) starring Amitabh Bachchan.
- Any explanation on the word "presented"?
- He helped both the docu's in getting them a theatrical release. If it doesn't looks Important, should I remove it? --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Helping two documentaries getting a theatrical release! It does not look so trivial however. Let it stay. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2015, he co-produced two successful ventures NH10 and Hunterrr. — another "venture". Kindly replace it with film.
- Nothing is mentioned about Masaan in the lead, even after weeks of its theatrical release.
- Mentioning every film he is associated with in the lead will Increase its size. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you to do so for the critical acclaim it has received. But, your explanation seems reasonable enough. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are right, that movie is worth mentioning. So, I have added it. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you to do so for the critical acclaim it has received. But, your explanation seems reasonable enough. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Hoping the best to happen. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from FrB.TG
{{hidden/FC|headerstyle=background:#7CB9E8;|contentstyle=border:1px #7CB9E8 solid; padding:10px;|header=Resolved comments from Frankie talk|content=
- I think you should use (and then wiki-link) the word Bollywood as it is more relevant.
- Done
- "Anurag Kashyap is an Indian film director, producer, screenwriter and actor" – how about filmmaker?
- Filmmaker in place of director or everything?
- In place of the first three. -- Frankie talk 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both films garnered positive reviews" – in the previous sentence you have mentioned three films. Which "both films" are you talking about; the first two or the last two?
- Rephrased and removed the critics review section.
- "In 2013, he made a short film on eve teasing titled That Day After Everyday" – what do you mean by "made"?
- Rephrased
- "he served as the creative director in the
televisionmini-series"
- Done.
- There are some redundant references for example ref 27. Please use sources in the lead only when it's not in the other parts of the article.
- Removed
- Wiki-link Sify in reference 15.
- Done.
- The Huffington Post is not a very good source to use.
- Should I remove this film? Water (2005)? Coz no source like IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or All movies mentions his name in the credits. I seriously doubt if he has a writing credit in the film.
- My queries are based on this revision. -- Frankie talk 15:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Filmfare is a magazine so italicize it in source 72.
- Done
- Wiki-link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 79 and de-link it in ref 101.
- Done
- Ref 18: The Guardian – I think you know what I am asking for.
- Its actually not the guardian, not even in the older version.
- See ref 80. -- Frankie talk 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See ref 80. -- Frankie talk 17:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Its actually not the guardian, not even in the older version.
- International Business Times in ref 86 – the same.
- Done
- Is it Mid Day or Mid-day. Write one and stick to it.
- Done
- Video from ref 100 seems to be uploaded by a fan. Replace the source.
- Its uploaded by Ashish Ghadiali, who is the co-writer and director of the film. You can see his name in the opening credit.
- Wiki-link India Today in source 103. -- Frankie talk 19:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After so many nominations, I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. -- Frankie talk 15:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I sort the table by "Director", the films he has directed go to the bottom; they should be at the top (same for all the other columns). Name the Bombay Talkies segment he made. For Jayate and Paanch could you give some sort of date in the notes? (approx when it was made, for eg)—indopug (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no need in sorting the table but I have mentioned the segment name for Bombay Talkies and Mumbai Cutting. I have mentioned the dates when Jayate and Paanch were supposed to get a theatrical release. --Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire point of include a sorting option is that you see your chosen sort at the beginning. It is annoying for the reader to click sort by director and then have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table.—indopug (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for resolving the Issue yourself. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire point of include a sorting option is that you see your chosen sort at the beginning. It is annoying for the reader to click sort by director and then have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the table.—indopug (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
Just archive the URLs as they are unlikely to last forever. Also, Gangs of Wasseypur has an article containing info on both the films. Fit that somehow here. The article otherwise looks good, and has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Archived most of the links and added Gangs of Wasseypur. -- Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:58, 17 September 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) 01:39, 21 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [19].
- Nominator(s): Frankie talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC), GagaNutella, SNUGGUMS[reply]
Another videography from me and Snuggums. I have modeled the list based on Katy Perry videography, an FL I wrote with the help of the aforementioned user. A thanks to the user IndianBio, who has contributed to the article. I reckon we are close to the six FL criteria, but, as always, thanks to those of you, who comment, support, or even oppose. -- Frankie talk 18:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Does Gaga's performance at the 87th Academy Awards not count? Just wondering.
Sources seem to check out, but I have slight reservations about the use of Idolator. The Wikipedian Penguin 16:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed as a reliable source under WP:ALBUM/SOURCES. Just so you know. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good all day long for GAs, but what makes it a high quality reliable source? The Wikipedian Penguin 17:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedian Penguin All replaced. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits; please revert if you don't agree with them.
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support One final thing: The way you've got the second sentence now makes it seem like she played a doomed starlet in all three music videos. I'd recommend saying, for example, "..."Poker Face" and "Paparazzi". In the video for "Paparazzi", she portrays a...", or some other construction, if you don't like the repetition of "Paparazzi". Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you A Thousand Doors. I went ahead and fixed the text; good catch! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Johanna
Resolved comments from Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Is it standard or something for the top of the infoboxes of these kinds of things to say "video discography" instead of "videography"? If not, change it.
That's all I got. Looks like a nice list! Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nice job all. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thank you, your support is very important. GagaNutellatalk 02:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginian
Support FrB.TG, GagaNutella, and SNUGGUMS, the prose of the lede is well-written, the lede adequately meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and the lists meet the criteria set forth at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. The image of Lady Gaga is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore suitable for use here; and the image has both standard and alt captions. All the subsequent images have CC licenses, which also enables them to be included in this list. All other previous concerns have been addressed above. Thank you all for your extraordinary work on this filmography. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm beyond grateful with your comments. Thank you so much! GagaNutellatalk 12:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the detailed review and support, West Virginian. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:27, 20 September 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) 01:39, 21 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 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [20].[reply]
- Nominator(s): '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Miroslav Klose, who crossed the Iron Curtain knowing only two words of German, is an unlikely legend of international football, even if his name does not conjure up as much romanticism as those of Pelé and Puskás. He scored on his debut in 2001 and ended his career on the biggest high imaginable, winning the World Cup. He is the top scorer of all time for one of the elite nations in world football, and the top scorer of all time in the World Cup, the most-watched single-sport event on the planet. Naturally, much has been written specifically on his goalscoring exploits rather than his career as a whole, thus this list is a topic of public interest. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- this needs a longer intro and a statistics section (i.e. goals per competitions and g# of games). Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the lead is fine; a summary of goals and appearances per years seems to be what Nergaal is attempting to request. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man I think Nergaal may be asking for analysis of goals per competition or most common opponent against whom he scored, like you have on Rooney and Henry. I can put that in too. '''tAD''' (talk) 20:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should at least briefly summarize the history section, like pointing out say when he became the top goalscorer, when he scored hatricks, most common opponent scored against, when he helped Germany win Euros and WCs, etc. I also think a small table summarizing how many goals per type of competition would be informative (how many WC, WC quals, Euro, Euro quals, friendlies). Also, his name should be linked in the intro. Nergaal (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - as this has stagnated...
- Perhaps Nergaal just wants the summary section merged in with the lead, as per Rooney and Charlton. TBH, don't care if it's clumped together or not.
- "alongside
championBrazil's Rivaldo and behind Ronaldo" - I'd wikilink brace for the benefit of readers
- "On 10 September 2008, in 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification", how about 'during the 2010 World Cup qualifcation stage'?
- "in an 8–0 opening rout of Saudi Arabia at the Sapporo Dome", vague. Does this mean Germany's opening game of the campaign, if so state it succinctly.
- "Klose added two more goals in German's victory" Germany's
- "taking him to 16 World Cup goals, surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer" → "taking him to 16 World Cup goals and surpassing Ronaldo as the tournament's record goalscorer"
- Ref 6, 7, 8, 9 should be BBC Sport
- Wikilink CNN on Ref 26, not 27
- Fix dashes on Refs 25 and 33. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Almightey Drill: Are you still monitoring this? Harrias talk 10:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Harrias I executed Lemonade's suggestions, I await the next step '''tAD''' (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
This is not Miroslav Klose's main article, so his name in the lead should not be in bold, but instead wikilinked to his article.I think that the summary section should be merged with the lead and trimmed down."Klose added two more goals in German's victory at the 2014 FIFA World Cup..." – Should be "Germany's victory".Scores and results list; Germany's goal tally first. – Extra semicolon in there. There should also be an explanation of what is the score column.You could add to the goals list the cap number, using this source.Why is a goals-per-year table nested under a section titled "National"? Plus, no need for a Germany link atop this table, since he has not played for any other national team.A table distributing goals per competition is missing, and maybe one with a the number of goals scored against other national teams by decreasing order.
— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I agree with the "maybe" on goals by opponents, it's perhaps too much analysis, and the Rooney FA doesn't have it. The lead does include the countries he scored the most against. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Happy with the improvements. Congrats. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [21].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Modelled off the similar list for Wayne Rooney which looks as though it will be a FL in the next few days, this does have a few minor formatting variations. Charlton is still England's leading goal scorer, though Rooney looks like taking that record soon. As always, throw whatever you've got at me! Harrias talk 16:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments nice piece of work, I made a tweak or two, but have the following comments:
Otherwise nothing to worry me unduly. Eyes down for the French equivalent, coming to an FLC near you soon! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"...Ballon d'Or winner as world football's player of the year...", as far as I'm aware the Ballon d'Or was a strictly European accolade. Perhaps rephrase to 'Europe's footballer of the year'?
No dead or dabs. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support on style and structure. Nice work. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Mattythewhite
I see Harrias is away for another week... will this nomination be left open long enough for them to respond to the outstanding comments? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I feel this list now meets the criteria. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note the list ought to note that Rooney is now number one, and when he overtook Charlton's record. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "with his first hat-trick in international football" does not seem to be referenced
- Added ref at the end of the sentence. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "final international goal " should mention month/year
- "successful 1966 FIFA World Cup campaign" I would prefer to have this be more explicit about ENG winning the title
- Made this more explicit. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bloomsbury Publishing plc" shouldn't the latter be capitalized?
- ref 16 and 45 are missing dates
- They are not news sources, they don't have dates. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand "The Times (55408)" notation
- The number in brackets is the issue number, it's quite common when referencing The Times, and is part of what they request for citations. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- can't really check much of the refs though
- more this to notes: England score listed first, score column indicates score after each Charlton goal.
- I think it is important to make it obvious and clear, rather than hiding it away in the notes. Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am missing something, aren't these goals the pinnacle of his career? I think you could expand on this sentence and say one goal in the group stage, and both of goals in the 2-1 semifinal win. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: Ahh, I see what you mean. Added a bit more in now. Harrias talk 13:34, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless I am missing something, aren't these goals the pinnacle of his career? I think you could expand on this sentence and say one goal in the group stage, and both of goals in the 2-1 semifinal win. Nergaal (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: Thanks for your comments, I think I have addressed each of them! Harrias talk 19:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nergaal (talk) 16:48, 16 September 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) 01:39, 21 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 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [22].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article lists those who have received the highest grades of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the third one I've brought to FLC so far, covering the appointments made by Edward VIII (reigned 1936). It is short, but one of the delegates believes it passes criterion 3, so I am giving it a shot. I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Edward VII's appointments which was promoted to FL in March. It is complete and all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Please note that I will be unable to respond to queries between the 8th and 16th September.
Comments, all in all a pretty tidy piece of work. I have a few minor points:
- "the remainder was the Lord Mayor of London" As there was only one "remainder" I personally think "other" would be a better choice of word than "remainder".
- Done
- "to the 15 July 1936" Should just be "to 15 July 1936".
- Done
- Could the Date of appointment column be made slightly wider in the first table so that the header fits on one line, as in the second list? It would be even nicer if the columns lined up between the two tables!
- Done
- The notes should all finish with full-stops.
- Done
- Use {{abbr|Ref|References}} to display Ref in the table header (and be consistent between the two lists whether you use the full-stop at the end: I prefer it without.)
- Done
- The references could do with expansion: royal.gov.uk and gg.ca would be better written out as The British Monarchy and The Governor General of Canada. Similarly, debretts.com could be Debrett's. The London Gazette articles need dates of publication. Harrias talk 20:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment - I would like to see some sort of navbox to connect all the RVO-by-monarch lists; it's not currently a quick task to jump from this list to the similar lists from other monarchs, and it should be. --PresN 20:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: Thanks for the comment—I've had a go at creating a template containing all the links. I haven't got round to creating all the articles and this project is very much a work in progress, so I've included red links too. Hopefully this makes navigating it easier. Any further comments would by greatly appreciated. Best wishes, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- Also, as I state above, I will not be around from tomorrow to the 16th, but I will be back and responding to comments thereafter. Thanks again, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, with almost 2 months passed without a support, I'm going to have to close this nomination as not passed. Fee free to renominate; and note that the easiest way to convince other people to review your nomination is to review theirs first. --PresN 14:03, 20 October 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [23].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With appearances in 30 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, Ian Carmichael was a consummate character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, including Private's Progress (1956), and I'm All Right Jack (1959). His portrayals on BBC television of with The World of Wooster—in which he played Bertie Wooster—and as Lord Peter Wimsey all added to his renown and credit. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main Ian Carmichael page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – perhaps my favorite film of his was School for Scoundrels, so what with the rotten bounder already at FL, I'm glad to see this here too. The lead required very little, but I did notice a bit of repetion with "continued to appear throughout his career". The "throughout his career" was even a bit awkward in a few places as by the time you mentioned it, he was already into his career and paying into his pension pot. I tried to fix it, so you may want to have a look. The lists all look solid with everything linked and reliably cited. CassiantoTalk 23:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks – much appreciated! Your edits are as welcome as they always are. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Ian Carmichael is a favorite supporting player in the few films I've seen him in.
- - Footnote a. for A Midsummer Night's Dream has no citation.
- - Suggestion (not a deal breaker) - It would make a cleaner column if you bundled the citations for The Lyric Revue, Say Who You Are, Getting Married and Overheard.
- - Spot check of the references show no issues.
- - Table formatting is in accordance with MOS:DTT.
- - Overall, well done. Wish there were an image for this list, but I've searched the internet and found nothing but the non-free image already on his WP biography article. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Maile. I've added the citation for the footnote (good catch!) My rule of thumb for bundling is three citations, so I'll leave it for the present, if that's OK, but if there is another request for it, I'll certainly do it. Many thanks for your thoughts. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - There being no other issues I can see, I'm happy to give my support to this. If you have any time, I could use help with comments on my nomination. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support No further issues that I can see. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks ATD -as aways your thoughts and comments aremuch appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:06, 3 September 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) 01:40, 21 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 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [24].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Through the efforts of myself and other editors, this list as been completely redone since the 2011 removal. Station and system ridership data is now current; line ridership data isn't available past 2010, but it's not nearly as important as the stations themselves. All citations are checked and live, unnecessary station codes removed, and {{dagger}} and {{N/A}} used for accessibility. I believe this is back up to FL quality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Golbez (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: Please leave a more substantive review, or else your support may be discounted- bare supports look like the reviewer only briefly looked at the list. Very few nominations truly have no issues at all, and this is not one of them- a brief check showed that the Rail Connections column is sorting strangely (N/A is sorting under N). --PresN 19:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 Giants2008 01:03, 7 October 2015 [25].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man, Royroydeb
Another cricket list. Well I've scrubbed this one up a bit, it was in good nick thanks to the sterling work of Royroydeb but needed some tweaks which I applied. It's in good shape, but, as ever, thanks to those of you who contribute, comment, support, etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvan Atapattu is only 713 words long, and already includes bad versions of these tables. As things stand in that parent article, I think this list could very easily be merged into that article, rather than being a standalone list. Harrias talk 20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I was working off the template, so I suppose this nom should be closed, the work I've done should be merged, even though it's better than the bio article, and I'll live to fight another day? I would prefer the list to live, but if it doesn't, hey, whatever. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see what sort of state we can improve the main article to over the next few days, this list might still have a chance! Harrias talk 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sounds good to me, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see what sort of state we can improve the main article to over the next few days, this list might still have a chance! Harrias talk 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man and Harrias: It's been nearly five weeks since this comment about whether a standalone list is needed was made. There has been no change in terms of the parent article. Perhaps it's time to merge back this table back to the parent article? Cowlibob (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's a shame, but at least the parent article will benefit. Happy (sort of) to withdraw this nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 4 October 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 7 October 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 14:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My second cricket-related featured list. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You already have one list here that has yet to receive any support. You should only nominate a second list when your current one has enough support. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you should've been aware of this one: "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." The other list is yet to be reviewed by a single editor. —Vensatry (ping) 11:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry and NapHit: Oops! Forgot about that! Should I withdraw for now? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say so, as soon as you're other lists gets enough supports, then it shouldn't be a problem renominating it! NapHit (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492, SchroCat, Giants2008, and PresN: I request
withdrawalof my nomination. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492, SchroCat, Giants2008, and PresN: I request
- I'd say so, as soon as you're other lists gets enough supports, then it shouldn't be a problem renominating it! NapHit (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry and NapHit: Oops! Forgot about that! Should I withdraw for now? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for striking your withdrawal. Your other list has now a support, and that it does not need to be withdrawn. -- Frankie talk 14:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- FrB.TG, it's good that you reviewed the other list, but one support is still a thin-line case. —Vensatry (ping) 15:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to close this one, since I never got around to it and your other nom now has ~2.5 supports, but in the future: @Ssven2, FrB.TG, and Vensatry: the rule of thumb for a second nomination is that your first has at least three substantive reviews ending in supports, and no ongoing reviews for a few days minimum. One support really isn't enough. --PresN 19:43, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I am going to close this one- after almost 2 months without a support, I'm going to have to close this as not passed. Feel free to renominate, and note that the easiest way to get people to review your nomination is to review theirs first. --PresN 14:04, 20 October 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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [27].[reply]
- Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude
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. It follows the same format as three similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments – looks good
Lead image needs alt text. In other images, alt text should simply name the ground.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, you could add the actual dates instead of "no other matches to date".- The previous three such articles I've got to FL status all used this format, I'd rather stay consistent.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The footnotes are unsourced.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (ping) 16:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Vensatry (ping) 17:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Relentlessly
- "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship, representing the historic county of Gloucestershire." Two separate things there. How about "Gloucestershire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship. It represents the historic county of Gloucestershire."
- Altered, although in a different way to how you suggested to avoid too many short sentences. What do you think.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It has since played host to first-class cricket from 1870, List A cricket from 1963 and Twenty20 cricket from 2003." Clubs don't "play host". They "play".
- Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The club's debut home match" Journalese. "The club's first home match" is better.
- Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bristol has been considered an independent county since 1373, though it was officially part of the county of Avon from 1974 until 1996.[9] Somerset have played first-class matches at other venues in the city." These are odd sentences, coming right at the end of a totally unrelated paragraph. They need to stand alone or move somewhere else.
- Not really unrelated, as it comes right after extensive stuff about the club playing at Bristol and clarifies that Bristol isn't technically in Gloucestershire. I think it is relevant at that point.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "before its use was discontinued in 1992." You mean "until".
- Altered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it odd that our article is at Trowbridge Cricket Club Ground but you call the ground "County Ground".
- Cricket Archive calls it the County Ground, as does The Cricketer magazine and, most tellingly, Trowbridge Cricket Club themselves. I think this article is right and the article on the ground is titled wrongly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Generally this looks good, though. Relentlessly (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Images review
- Durdham Down (750px).jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Clifton College - geograph.org.uk - 147399.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Gymnasium and cricket field, Cheltenham College - geograph.org.uk - 194667.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Bristol County Ground.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Swindon Cricket Club.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Trowbridge Cricket Club - geograph.org.uk - 556029.jpg, captioned with alt text, appropriately licensed on Commons
- Buildings in the images are covered by Commons:Freedom of panorama United Kingdom
- Support - If this review was helpful, please consider optionally reviewing my List of Alamo defenders — Maile (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – nothing to fault in this, meets all the criteria, nice work. Harrias talk 10:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [28].
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2015 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Another brilliant list from Birdie. A sure-shot FL material.Krish | Talk 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I think it would useful if you wrote a sentence about what the Academy Honorary Award and Jean Hersholt Award are for because we can't wikilink titles. Could you make this a standard for all the Academy Award ceremony pages? Cowlibob (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good job. Sorry for the delay in returning. I do reiterate that you should look at standardising the Academy Award ceremonies lists when you have more time. Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How come you guys could add a criticism section to this but to the previous ones you couldn't? Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In this specific ceremony, there was a fair amount of coverage regarding the lack of diversity among the nominees that was not pertaining to only film critics (i.e.: being covered in a neutral third person perspective). Usually we do not include what was snubbed at the Oscars for Neutral point of view purposes and objectivity concerns. However, if there is criticism that results in action that affects the production of the ceremony (protests against homophobia at the 64th Academy Awards and protest regarding lack of diversity at the 68th Academy Awards) without being related to any specific film in particular, then it was agreed that it can be included. The criticism was in response to a lack of diversity based on omission of not just one film in particular (you might think it was because of solely Selma, but also other films such as Beyond the Lights, Dear White People, and Get on Up with prominently black actors were overlooked as well). Furthermore this is focusing on a social problem in general rather than a snubbing of particular films. So we won't give focus on film critics whining that Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, or Crash got "robbed" for the sake of objectivity purposes. Those can be dealt at the respective film's articles.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if they come from respectable sources, that does not mean they should be used. There were many people who thought Fruitvale Station was snubbed for the 86th Oscars or Michael Fassbender in Best Actor for Shame. Every year there will always be perceived snubs. Iget what you are trying to say, but in order to satisfy neutrality, there has to be a rebuttal statement or article defending such choices which is difficult. Snubs and surprises are very arbitrary. Anyways, I suggest you bring this up in the respective talk pages of the ceremonies you think is appropriate. Better yet, ask the FL delegates such as Crisco 1492, Giants2008, or PresN about your inqueries. This FLC should only be devoted to stuff pertain to this specific ceremony.
- All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some actual comments:
- I don't see the point of having the acronym AMPAS in the intro, nor the start time of the ceremony (they can simply me mentioned only later); "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences " is used twice in the intro.
- AMPAS is placed in the intro in order to identify the abbreivation. Removed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and used AMPAS to avoid redundancy.
- the governors awards stuff from the intro should be trimmed town to half; there is other more important information that can be present in the intro instead
- Done: Removed the Governors Awards items since they are mentioned below the competitive winners table and seems redundant. Moved the Sci-Tech Awards sentence to first paragraph like most Oscar ceremony lists. That sentence is still important since that is part of the annual awards festivities.
- the intro should mention all the big five winners
- Done: Second intro paragraph now is only devoted two winners of Picture, Director, and four Acting Awards. It also has who won most and small mention of ratings.
- "every nominated film won at least one award" you eman every fo the films nominated in the best film category probably, since not all shorts and documentaries could win
- Done: Changed to "every Best Picture nominee"
- why not have winners in bold?
- Done: Originally there was a dispute over if bold can be used simultaneously with the dagger because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, screen readers cannot usually detect bold text. The Rambling Man said that the bold text can remain as long as there is a symbol that screen readers can detect (daggers in this case).
- the gover nor awards section probably does not need an extra bullet for the explanations; remove the extra bullets or even merge the explanation row with the winner
- Done: Both award and reason are on same line separated by em-dash
- you can probably have "The following 17 films received multiple nominations:" move as table cation with the "|+ [insert caption here]" so you dont have sentences ending in "
- Done
- "the box office section can probably discuss the oscar bump the movies received (i.e. how much more they made after they were nominated)
- Done: Large table added with pre-nomination, pre-awards, and post-awards box office figures.
- Memoriam can probably easily use 3 rows, and I think some people complained about featuring non-film related entries here
- Done
Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal:: I've addressed all your comments.
- Support nice work! Nergaal (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal:: Thanks. Could you hide your comments in a bar so that these comments don't make a mess and that the FLC delegates can see your comments have been resolved. Keep the support comment outside the bar.
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
|
- Support – Very good piece of work. -- Frankie talk 21:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest talk |
---|
I would see no problem at all with using both. Using just the double dagger would be sufficient, but just using bold is not sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] I concur with The Rambling Man; using boldface and dagger is fine but at least include the dagger. It would otherwise be more difficult for screen readers. My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Birdienest81: For clarification, I support the accessibility improvement. I'm not qualified to support or oppose the content itself, as I do not follow the awards. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The following comment by SNUGGUMS was inadvertently included in the above discussion on accessibility. I do not know whether it has been resolved, so I am not comfortable hiding it:
Snuggums is welcome to edit this section, including removal of my comment wrap, to reflect their current concerns. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have no concerns left, Thisisnotatest, since the dagger has been implemented and the prose has been adjusted. Reaffirming my support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 September 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) 01:40, 21 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 15:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) [29].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MPJ-US 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as the third part of a wrestling trilogy of FLs that already has the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship and NWA World Middleweight Championship. This article has incorporated everything I learned from the other two FLs (and others) and is a Feature List quality article. MPJ-US 23:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 08:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- @Grapple X: - Thanks for the fast feedback. The only one I am not sure of is the coloring of the NWA Mexico reigns - they are used to indicate who promoted the championship at the time. I get that NWA Mexico is the "new normal" now, but then I say that all CMLL reigns should be colored to indicate the difference. I use the colors to indicate when it is not promoted by the original company. If there is a general consensus that this should be changed I am okay with that. Side note, while this is an active championship the list is much more static than say a WWE championship list, the championships normally do not change hands as often in Mexico - with reigns often lasting over a year. I believe I correctly addressed all the concerns? MPJ-US 16:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, thought I had already come back to this. I'm happy enough to support this based on its current state. GRAPPLE X 08:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WillC
- Lead
- Box looks fine.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Championship was inactive until just over a year later when the championship was used by Toryumon, making Dragon Kid became the first Toryumon-promoted champion it." to "The Championship was inactive until over a year later when Dragon Kid was made the first Toryumon-promoted champion."--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, good suggestion.
- "On June 22, 2011 Cassandro" - needs a comma.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- "Karloff Lagarde and Américo Rocca" - infobox gives the latter two names--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch.
- Infobox says Great Sasuke has a one day reign as well--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure why Sasuke was in the info box, removed and back to two.
- Title history
- Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I commend you on showing when it was in which promotion and part of the J-Crown. Good idea.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't an indication next to the current champion to show the reign is changing daily. Possibly use the cross symbol.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and "+" symbol added to the legend at the top.
- There is a link to vacant in the terms article on english pedia now.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reigns by combined length
- Sorting checks out--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- May not want to use addition symbol twice in the article, may confuse readers.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To indicate days passed? I thought that was standard and it's the same symbol for the same thing isn't it?
- I wasn't paying close attention. It looked like the symbol for NWA Mexico was an addition sign but I see the difference now. Ignore this.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- To indicate days passed? I thought that was standard and it's the same symbol for the same thing isn't it?
- Footnotes
- Coding works fine, they make sense.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for note 3 please.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced Mephisto's weight and threw in the ref from his title win in the table after the note. Cannot put a citation inside the note, I tried but this should work?
- References
- Should make a external links section with the nwa website. Why isn't this included in the NWA template?--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I took some relevant external links off the NWA Article.
- They were not in the NWA template because I did not pay attention to non-CMLL title articles. Listed now.
- Sources check out as reliable.--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wrestlinglover: - Thank you for all the input, every little thing helps. I hope I have addressed all your concerns? MPJ-US 04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPJ-DK: I didn't want it to fail due to lack of reviews, figured I'd help out.--WillC 14:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Wrestlinglover: - Thank you for all the input, every little thing helps. I hope I have addressed all your concerns? MPJ-US 04:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Should make a external links section with the nwa website. Why isn't this included in the NWA template?--WillC 02:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must have forgot. Support --WillC 17:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, as this nomination has been open for 2 months without receiving sufficient attention, I'm going to have to close it as not passed, in order to keep FLC from getting bogged down. Feel free to renominate in the future, and remember that the best way to get other people to review your nominations is to review theirs first. --PresN 15:58, 27 October 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 08:13, 13 October 2015 [30].
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another topic from a little-loved show. I took a bit of licence with this one as it's not a style of list that's been covered much, and what samples I could find seemed to focus mostly on "in-universe" material. I've defined a scope and stuck to it, but for the most part Millennium was a series devoid of any real weighty characters beyond the lead role. I am a little underwhelmed by the lead; I think maybe it needs something visual to break it up but nothing leapt out beyond possibly moving the Henriksen image up (two attempts at PR led nowhere at all). A previous FLC had a few minor comments which have been addressed, so there should be nothing outstanding from that. Thanks in advance to anyone looking over this. GRAPPLE X 22:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support despite it claiming a third season exists, which is a vicious lie. --Golbez (talk) 08:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support continuing from the previous nom, based on style, structure and referencing. Couldn't find any major problems with prose that would make me alter my decision. Be sure to correct spelling of criticised → criticized as this is an American show. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended, thanks. GRAPPLE X 13:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well sourced and nicely put together. I would however, suggest reducing the size of Pounder's photo to match the size of Henrickson's, and perhaps adding one of Klea Scott. I also noticed a citation error on the page that needs attention. Best Regards. Drdpw (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately we have no free files of Scott or she'd have been a natural inclusion. I've changed the Pounder image to specify the same width as Henriksen's (170px). I hadn't noticed the cite error, but it was the result of two citations using the same name; I've fixed that now. GRAPPLE X 23:47, 8 October 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) 08:09, 13 October 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 21:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC) [31].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I've recently been working on it and have based its layout on a number of other featured medal tables. I believe it may now meet the criteria for inclusion and will be willing to fix any issues. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Bleacher Report is usually not considered a reliable source based on previous discussions such as this one. Here is an article from The New York Times about Armin Zöggeler that makes reference to his record.
Comment by Birdienest81
|
Support: I can confidently confirm my support for this list now that a few more people have proofread the list.
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
30em.
That's about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support no major pressing issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The red in the image needs to become something like green. Also, the legend is missing and "eleven" is a joke. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- None of this is actionable, what "legend" do you want? What do you mean by "eleven" is a joke? If you'd like to help then please help, otherwise I suggest you don't continue to add such cryptic and unhelpful commentary. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks fine now, but are there deleted entries in the history of the article after Aug 31? Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nvm, I am pretty sure I remember seeing "11" being spelled out in the table, but maybe there was some sort of glitch. Nergaal (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, why? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks fine now, but are there deleted entries in the history of the article after Aug 31? Nergaal (talk) 18:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"with a historic tie in alpine skiing." is a bit vague. The historic part was that it was the first time a gold was tied or any medal, or that the fight for the medal was a historic one?
Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support and feel free to rc my comments. Nergaal (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ravendrop 17:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
30em.
Comments by Ravendrop
|
- I support the article. Looks Good. Ravendrop 19:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've adopted the wording used in the main article. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this nomination as passed. Remember to review other people's nominations, so that future nominations will run faster! --PresN 21:18, 28 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [32].
- Nominator(s): Azealia911 talk 16:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is an extensive list of songs recorded by American rapper Azealia Banks. It details her very oldest demo tracks such as "Gimme a Chance" and "Barbie Shit", to her more recent tracks like "Ice Princess" and "Wallace".
Resolved comments from —JennKR |
---|
====Comments from JennKR====
Firstly, congratulations on producing such a strong article! As someone quite familiar with Banks' discography, I read over the article wondering whether you would include less well known tracks from Banks' relatively non-mainstream career, so I'm impressed demos and remixes, such as the early incarnation of "Gimme a Chance" and verses for Baauer and M.I.A tracks, appear. Comments are few. —JennKR | ☎ 23:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support—particularly on criteria 2 and 3 which I looked at in detail when providing my review above. Great work! —JennKR | ☎ 22:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 22:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from West Virginia
Azealia911, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review of your list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I do, however, have just a few comments and suggestions below. I didn't have much more to say in terms of suggestions, as it looks like JennKR has addressed the majority of them. Thank you again for crafting yet another phenomenal list. -- West Virginian (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- First and foremost, the image of Banks is licensed CC BY 2.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list. It is good to go! As for the caption of the image, there should be a regular caption for view in the article, and a separate alt caption should be included. The alt caption is meant for readers who cannot see the image and summarizes the image's appearance. With an image of Banks in this green outfit, I'm sure you could craft quite a creative description of her appearance for the alt.
- Umm, there already is an alt? Azealia911 talk
- Diss track should be wiki-linked in the lede since it actually has a Wikipedia article.
- Done. Azealia911 talk
- I am still new to reviewing lists of song recordings, so please forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I noticed that Azealia Banks is repeatedly wiki-linked under the "Writer(s)" column. Should it be de-linked after its first wiki-link since the column is unsortable?
- I'd discourage that. I deliberately didn't link her in any of the artist columns so that her name would only be wikilinked once per entry, if you sort by year, the first result is different to if you sort by album, so I'd have to link 3 or 4 random occurrences of her name, which would look odd. Azealia911 talk
Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 talk 11:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Azealia911, thank you for addressing my comments. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some real trouble with the last two comments, I've been able to address everything else, but sorting templates is completely new to me. Could you possibly do them for me? I think there's only a couple. I'd really appreciate it. Cheers, Azealia911 talk 14:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some examples as to what you'd want me to replace 'None' with? I was contemplating using something like 'Free download', but free downloads aren't automatically ruled out as not being on an album. "BBD" was originally a free download, and it ended up on Broke with Expensive Taste. I'm not sure how familiar you are with modern rap music and the way it's released, and that isn't meant to be patronizing, but I do see on your user page that you're a big fan of The Beatles and Radiohead. Nowadays, songs are released more and more through services like Soundcloud, Audiomack and Tumblr, or are sent to music reporting sites like Pitchfork Media. Any song that isn't a single, or a remix of a song, that has 'None' as the album was released via one of the aforementioned methods. Azealia911 talk
|
- Support I have no further issues. Good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou! Azealia911 talk 20:33, 9 September 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) 01:41, 21 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 PresN 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [33].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another cricket list. This is my first attempt at a cricket-related article. Constructive comments are most welcome. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
|
- Support – good work. -- Frankie talk 14:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FrB.TG: Thanks again, Frankie. As always, your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 10:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @NapHit: Thanks, NapHit. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 07:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias
|
- Support – nice work. Fancy taking a look at one for me? (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1877–1914)/archive1) Harrias talk 12:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Thanks for the support and for the offer, Harrias. I'm currently abstaining from reviewing anything (GAN, PR, FAC and FLC) at the moment (studies being a factor). Best of luck with your FLC though! — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry and The Rambling Man: You two closed your comments a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's mandatory to offer "supports" as a part of the review, isn't it? —Vensatry (ping) 08:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 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 16:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC) [34].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Ytfc23 (talk) and The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another cricket-related list, Ian Bell is one of only two English cricketers since the Second World War to have won five Ashes series and this list details his 26 international centuries. The list resembles a similar style to numerous other list of centuries by international cricketers, I would like to thank The Rambling Man for the help in tidying up the list and its a pleasure to co-nominate this list, and look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve the list. Ytfc23 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 10:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (ping) 07:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias
|
- Support entry #17 is still irritatingly on two lines on my screen, even though I have quite a large screen, but I don't have any significant objections, nice work, both. Harrias talk 10:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vensatry: you closed your comments here a while back; are you willing to support? --PresN 14:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Vensatry (ping) 16:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing this FLC as passed. Consider nominating the list at WP:TFLS, and remember that the best way to make sure that nominations get through the process faster is to review other nominations. --PresN 16:28, 26 October 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 18:17, 4 October 2015 [37].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another cricket list. This is probably the first-of-its-kind for a batsmen list. Comments and suggestions are welcome —Vensatry (ping) 09:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, given a recent discussion, I'm concerned that this might be a 3(b) violation as a content fork of List of One Day International cricket records#Most career runs. Harrias talk 09:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, given that we have 11 entries I feel this could well be forked out. With Gayle, Dhoni, ABD, and Kohli in the lineup, this is expected to grow in the near future. I'm not supporting WP:OSE, but we have an existing FL—List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket. Plus, you seemed to have supported the creation of these lists. —Vensatry (ping) 11:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So I did. I'm not personally opposing the list on this basis, but I just mentioned it as it was fresh in my mind. Harrias talk 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: Are you willing to proceed further, if you're convinced it's not a 3(b) issue? —Vensatry (ping) 17:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So I did. I'm not personally opposing the list on this basis, but I just mentioned it as it was fresh in my mind. Harrias talk 11:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to add a columns listing the number of matches taken to reach 10,000 runs. The "span" for time is good, but having the same for matches would be useful. Harrias talk 13:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good one, but innings? —Vensatry (ping) 18:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, innings would make more sense than matches. Harrias talk 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harrias: That's a vital statistic. Added —Vensatry (ping) 03:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it need mentioning in the "team" column, or elsewhere, that some of these players have appeared for other teams in ODIs, such as the ICC World XI, Asia XI, etc? Harrias talk 09:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good one. FNs added —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The note might be better placed in the team column I think? Harrias talk 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I may have to cite the notes in the 'Team' column again by replicating the same refs. —Vensatry (ping) 15:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The note might be better placed in the team column I think? Harrias talk 14:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good one. FNs added —Vensatry (ping) 11:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments quick first run-through...
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all my concerns addressed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The table looks fine, but I am concerned about the lead. I don't think it reads very well: some sentences have clumsy phrasing while the whole thing would work better in a different order. I've redrafted it here. You can see a comparison of the two versions here. I'd be reluctant to support the list as it currently stands. Relentlessly (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Relentlessly: Thanks for all the work that you've put in to improve the prose. I've made some changes to the prose though not exactly the way you suggested. —Vensatry (ping) 11:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, Vensatry, I've made a couple of small changes that were necessary. But this looks much better now. Support. Relentlessly (talk) 11:29, 1 October 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) 18:39, 4 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [39].
- Nominator(s): Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I am working towards getting all of the Scotland results lists to FL, using the existing FL Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results as a basis to work from. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- It's looking good now, but just one final comment. The by opponent and by season tables need to meet MOS:DTT as well. NapHit (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mattythewhite
- I'm not sure about the current title format. I think Scotland national football team results (1920–39) would read better, and follows the format of featured lists like List of Birmingham City F.C. players (25–99 appearances).
- I think that would need to go to a move discussion, because it affects other teams with similar articles. Isn't there a guideline which suggests that natural disambiguation should be used where possible (i.e. avoiding the use of brackets)?
- Yes, it would probably be best to leave the naming of the title until after this FLC closes. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that would need to go to a move discussion, because it affects other teams with similar articles. Isn't there a guideline which suggests that natural disambiguation should be used where possible (i.e. avoiding the use of brackets)?
- Agreed. I will put in an initial if there are examples of common surnames.
- Also, I would unlink them after their first instance, as this column is not sortable.
- Agreed.
- Is it worth noting who scored the own goal in the match played on 12 April 1924?
- Done.
- The "Record by opponent" and "British Home Championship record by season" aren't referenced.
- Reference added for the BHC results. I doubt if there would be a reference available for record by opponent by a specific time period. Remove, or is it just a case of WP:CALC?
- Couldn't you use the three RSSSF refs you used for the results? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference added for the BHC results. I doubt if there would be a reference available for record by opponent by a specific time period. Remove, or is it just a case of WP:CALC?
Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your edits and feedback. Some comments above. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- think it is worth mentioning that during this period, Scotland was listed among the top teams worldwide according to the Elo ratings. World Football Elo Ratings says it was #4 and #7 by decade. Nergaal (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think it should be pointed out somewhere that Scotland had not played a single game from 1914 until 1920, and perhaps who were some of the notable players in this period (top goalscorers?). Nergaal (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Second sentence of lead has too many clauses for easy reading.
- Minor issue, you use FIFA in FIFA World Cup before you use FIFA on its own.
- For sortable consistency, all goalscorers should be linked each time.
- Grunewaldstadion is piped to Olympic Stadium (Berlin) which redirects to Olympiastadion (Berlin).
- I don't see a need for the "Overall record" table for British Home Championship, it adds no value.
- Ref 3 and Ref 8 need an endash in the title.
- You could put a couple of images in the white space to the right of the two summary tables, brighten things up a bit.
- Record by season table really only needs sourcing once, not every line.
Otherwise a nice list. P.S. I agree with the proposed page move as well... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 6 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [40].
- Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first and second nominations were closed due to a lack of reviewers/activity. Dom497 (talk) 03:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead could do with an image
- Still need an image. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "It features two theme parks,..." Is Aquatica not part of the resort?
- According to this, nope; however, Wet n' Wild is....so I better get on that!--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "opened to the public in..." in should be on
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eventually, Universal filed a lawsuit against the manufacture of Jaws, an attraction that was based on the film." I'd be more specific as to why they filed the lawsuit, its intrigued me, so I'm sure more readers would like to know as well. Plus manufacture is not the best word, perhaps construction?
- Per the previous sentence, "..several of the parks major attractions experienced frequent mechanical and technical problems, forcing the rides to close." Also, Universal sued the manufacturer of the Jaws attraction, not the construction company.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth including former rides on this list, seeing as some of them have their own wiki page?
- Everyone has different opinions on this but IMO, former and current rides should have their own pages. It allows the respective articles to focus solely on one topic rather than dealing with two broad topics at the same time (if the two articles were combined).--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Separate lists is not such a bad idea, would be good to see both. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone has different opinions on this but IMO, former and current rides should have their own pages. It allows the respective articles to focus solely on one topic rather than dealing with two broad topics at the same time (if the two articles were combined).--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider adding a paragraph summarizing the types of rides that are in the parks to provide context to the table and go with the height requirement sentence.
- @NapHit: I don't quite understand this. Remember, this is a list, not detailed information about the ride. Detailed ride information should go in it's own article. Also, there is already a column listing the type of ride that it is.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was just a few sentences stating that the parks consist of live shows, rollercoasters, dark rides etc. Just to give the reader a little bit more context. NapHit (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @NapHit: I don't quite understand this. Remember, this is a list, not detailed information about the ride. Detailed ride information should go in it's own article. Also, there is already a column listing the type of ride that it is.--Dom497 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Fails WP:or - 45 of the 56 citations are Primary sources from Universal Orlando Resort. I see promise in the list, but I don't see how this can pass FLC with the majority of the sourcing being Primary.— Maile (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66: Two other FL's have mostly primary sources, and though I know it is discouraged, there was no problem in those reviews.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I wasn't a part of those two . Sometimes things get past that shouldn't - it all depends on who does the review, I think. My opinion is but one. So, we'll see what anyone else has to say. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Maile66: Two other FL's have mostly primary sources, and though I know it is discouraged, there was no problem in those reviews.--Dom497 (talk) 20:14, 28 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 SchroCat 12:19, 28 September 2015 [41].
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a comprehensive and practical list of an important composer's. If you don't agree please tell me gently because it's my first nom for FL. The list is was created based on template {{Classical works row}} which Alakzi helped to imake work, and was filled mostly by Ipigott who knows the composer's work. Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize - looking at the other nominations - that it might be a good idea to move the article to a clumsy List of compositions by Carl Nielsen. Please discuss but don't move today while the article is still on the Main page as I write this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Cowlibob
I'm a complete layman when it comes to classical music so feel free to correct me.
- The lead is very short and is just a description of how the table is set out which is better just before the table where a similar paragraph already exists. I wonder if it would be better to simply bring up the history section and make it the lead.
- This new "history" lead could be expanded to highlight important compositions and perhaps show a chronological transition of how his compositions changed over time. Did he start of doing certain genres and move into others? That sort of thing would make the lead engaging.
- I find the table hard to follow in what order is it set out?
- Some of the table entries don't seem to be referenced.
- Simpson 1952, Lawson don't seem to be used to cite anything in the list.
- Translation column is not complete.
Cowlibob (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- A few replies:
- If a knowledgable person could write about his development, great, but isn't that covered in the composer's article?
- It's set out by listing his most famous compositions first, then by genre, but you can arrange it by all other keys, - how is it hard?
- The whole tabe - without saying it every time to avoid clutter - is referenced to the CNW site, for most rows the specific link to a work is in the last column.
- Simpson ref covers the FS numbers, - should that be explained?
- Translation is given only when the common name or part of it are Danish, again to avoid clutter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarifications. Since we have to my knowledge no FLs of works by composers, this would be the first of its kind. I thought bibliographies would be a good list type to compare to such as Arthur Conan Doyle bibliography, List of works by Georgette Heyer which do feature biographical elements which tell a story (introducing the person and then taking us through the important works).
- If it is all cited to CNW, it would be good if the last column is full then the reader could read across from each composition and see a citation to it in the same row.
- So the order is by most famous compositions first. I have not seen a table ordered that way, usually it is chronological, alphabetical or split by genre. I would like others input on it. Cowlibob (talk) 11:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Last first: it is by genre, just that - on request by Ipigott - two genres in which he excelled come first, then the normal order (which has stage works first which he did but not so successfully. If you sort by genre, you get the normal order, I probably said that already). The links of the genres take a reader to the section in question. The table was made because so far we had three - one by genre, one by date, one by opus number, - and each time you changed an item you had possibly to change it three times. No more time right now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah okay so it is by genre, just with a bit of tweaking. Thanks again for clarification. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Firstly, welcome to FLC, it's nice to see you here. I think that this article still has quite a lot of work to do to get up to FL standard. Here are some of my thoughts:
- We no longer normally begin FLs with "This is a list of..." or "This table is a...". Instead, the opening needs to tell the reader about who Carl Nielsen was, and what kind of works he produced. While this information may be available at Carl Nielsen, Wikipedia:Summary style says that each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit – for that reason, I would expect this article to go into a bit more detail about the composer himself.
- To honest, I'd recommend getting rid of the first paragraph entirely, and having what's in the History section as the lead instead. I don't remember ever seeing a FL where the sortability of the table was noted, and it would be confusing if one was reading this article on a screen reader, for example, or if it had been copied into a Wikipedia-Book, where the table would obviously not be sortable at all.
- The History section needs to flow better than it currently does. At the moment it's just four short disjointed paragraphs, two of which are only one sentence long each. This is an article that's covering nearly six decades' of a man's work – I would expect there to be more than just 200 words on the subject. At the very least, it need to be two or three times longer. What sort of things do other reliable source say about Nielsen's compositions? What sort of things do Lawson and Simpson say about Nielsen's works in their books?
- I don't know much about Neilsen, and I was still left with questions after reading this article, which makes me suspect that comprehensiveness is not as high as it needs to be. Who or what influenced him? Which of his works were best received? Were there any works where he tried something different? Although we don't have any FLs specifically about classical music compositions, you may want to seek inspiration from FLs on similar subjects, such as (for example) List of works by Dorothy L. Sayers, List of works by Sharpe and Paley, List of literary works published in Asia Raja or List of works by E. W. Hornung. On that subject...
- "Carl Nielsen works" suggests to me that this is going to be a prose-heavy article specifically about Carl Nielsen's work. As it stands, however, it's actually a list of Carl Nielsen's work. For that reason, I'd recommend moving this article to something like, say, List of works by Carl Nielsen.
- "Table of Compositions" -> "Compositions"
- Again, it's not necessary to discuss how the table is sortable.
- As Cowlibob says, the initial sorting of table is not very intuitive. Having them first sort chronologically seems most logical.
- It might be worth using the {{Abbr}} template for some of the abbreviations in this article, e.g.
{{Abbr|Op.|Opus number}}
and{{Abbr|FS|whatever FS stands for}}
- "Time" -> "Year(s)"
- Ved en ung Kunstners Baare is listed twice.
- Several works don't have CNW numbers. Any reason why not?
- Viser og Vers af J. P. Jacobsen doesn't have a year.
- Four citations is far, far fewer than I would expect to see in a FL.
I think this article still needs a lot of work doing to it, and I wish all participating editors the best of luck in improving it. It might be work running it through WP:Peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 1 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 28 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.
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 archived by Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [42].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after extensively renovating the list I now feel it is ready to be submitted to the scrutiny of the community. I already have a nomination running, but it has two supports and no unresolved comments. Thanks in advance for your comments.NapHit (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this looks similar, but perhaps less comprehensive than the list on the The Open Championship#Host courses section, is the intention to keep both? I also like the maps in the main article... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the intention is at this point. I guess if the main article was to be expanded then the prose would remain and the table would go, as this list can provide that info. Would you recommend moving the maps into this article alongside the table @The Rambling Man:. NapHit (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose at the moment, this is a 3(b) violation, as the content can be (and more or less is) located in the parent article, as mentioned by TRM above. Harrias talk 10:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok @Harrias: and @The Rambling Man:, I've removed the table from the main article, is that sufficient? Or does the prose need to be trimmed back as well? NapHit (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose with regret, per 3(b) concerns above. This list is short enough to incorporate in the main The Open Championship article and the text largely parallels what is already in that article. I don't think it would be undue weight to include this list in the main article, especially if you remove or truncate the list of all the previous events from the main article that largely duplicates the List of The Open Championship champions FL. On a side note, List of The Open Championship champions is a really awkward article title (championship champions?). –Grondemar 00:38, 27 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 27 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 01:21, 21 September 2015 [43].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another cricket list, we're flooding the nominations list with them at the moment! This one is loosely based on the similar List of ODI cricket centuries scored on debut. I have an open nomination, but it has two supports and no outstanding concerns. As always, all comments and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) |
---|
Comments
|
- Support —Vensatry (ping) 05:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm struggling to see any issues with this list. To add to Venastry's comments regarding prose, I think both sentences are fine and should remain as they are. FYI I have two lists here and here that could do with a review, if you're not too busy! NapHit (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Mainly trivial, good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all good from my perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good list. Great lead image. Minor comments. It would be good if we could get South Africa onto one line on the Pelham Warner row as it looks awkward. Foster's innings sentence probably needs an "as of". Cowlibob (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments "In a match in which no other player scored more than 20 runs in either innings, Bannerman scored 165 not out for Australia." - you probably meant no other player scored more than 20 runs in either innings for Australia ? No other comments. Tintin 14:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tintin1107: You're quite right: fixed. Harrias talk 08:08, 13 September 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) 01:41, 21 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [44].
- Nominator(s): — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... it documents each and every US Dance Club Songs number-one single of 2014. The lead high lists artists who have achieved the most chart toppers throughout the year, as well as other chartings, records, and achievements. Illustrated with as many images as the length of the list/article will permit me to include. All references are formatted and linked to each week of the chart on the Billboard website. — Calvin999 16:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 3b. While some FLs still exist on yearly lists, I don't see a reason not to merge such singles list by decade. Splitting them by year is not necessarily informative and does not attract interest from anybody asides its creators. Nergaal (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Links to yearly lists are placed on articles which have reached number-one though in the See also section. Having a decade lists would make an article far too long, and makes it harder for people to search. — Calvin999 18:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As is, does not pass WP:NOTESAL: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". There are no 3rd party sources at all, not to mention that the topic in general (number-one dance songs) is not typically discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't get much better than Billboard. — Calvin999 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting. — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different. — Calvin999 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. They use Billboard, because that's the sole provider. It's not a massive problem at all. You won't find many chart performance sections which use anything but Billboard for US charting info. It doesn't matter if you have a yearly list or a decade list as suggested above, the sources will be the same. Clearly, the criteria you speak of is useless and outdated. (You only use Masters and a few BBC out of less than 10 refs on List of Masters Tournament champions, notice it wasn't a problem there......) — Calvin999 23:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not missing the point at all. The fact that Billboard is the sole publisher referenced is a massive problem. I understand music articles will use Billboard, that's not the point, the point is that they will have 3rd party sources discussing them as well. The fact that this list does not is an issue. As it infers that the content is not notable enough to warrant a standalone list. The fact that you can't offer one independent source documenting the list infers that this should not be a standalone list. It's not a question of what happens at GAN or FAC, it is simply measuring this list against the criteria, that is all. NapHit (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your evaluation of my capability of understanding, but I think you're missing the point. All music articles use Billboard for everything US chart related. Weekly charts, year end charts, chart history, news reports, etc. Billboard the most reliable source you can get when it comes to US charting info. No one else publishes it because everyone trusts Billboard, that's not to say other media outlet won't comment on something extraordinary, like number-ones or new records. Are any of you even familiar with how music articles are researched and written?? I completely reject this nonsense. Billboard is welcomed at GAN and FAC, so I don't see how this is different. — Calvin999 14:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not understanding the point. The fact you state no one else publishes this is a problem. Billboard is the publisher of the chart, so of course it is going to publish the information, Is the chart mentioned in third-party news outlets? Is it notable outside of publication by Billboard? If it isn't then it fails 3b. NapHit (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no one else publishes this. We use Billboard for all chart tables in articles, and it's not a problem at GAN or FAC, so I don't see how it's different here. Billboard is a reliable source and it's data collected by Nielsen BDS and Nielsen Soundscan. Billboard is the compiler. For the Billboard articles, they are writers who write for the magazine. I don't agree that this is a problem in any way. Billboard is the best and only way to reliably source U.S. charting. — Calvin999 16:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Billboard publishes the chart; therefore, not independent of the information. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't get much better than Billboard. — Calvin999 15:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it do you. The fact that the Masters has refs from more than ONE publisher is indicative that it is notable. The Masters is also discussed in multiple media outlets rendering the list notable. Is that the case with this list? That is the question, it's on you to prove that it is. Stop getting so defensive it's doing yourself any favours. NapHit (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you propose I source who was number one each week? I'm open to any of your suggestions, if you can produce any. I fail to see how I can source who was number-one and any records or achievements if I can't use Billboard. Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat. — Calvin999 10:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This chart is the main Dance chart in the United States, it's not a component. It's been going in various form since the tracking of club plays in the 1970s. That makes it notable. Madonna has 46 number-ones on this chart, more than any other artist on any other chart in US history. Not commenting on something major goes for all US charts, not just this one. Your earlier statements implied that I couldn't use Billboard, which is why I asked how you expected me to source who is number-one each week. Billboard is the only source for that with regard to the table itself. — Calvin999 11:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You've answered the question yourself here: "Other media outlets don't tend to comment on it unless it's a major feat" which suggests the chart isn't notable. I'm not saying you can't use Billboard, just that if you can't produce independent sources that mention the chart then it indicates it's not notable per our guidelines. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added third party sources Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars — Calvin999 16:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried making contact with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars multiple times on his talk asking him to revisit, as I've done all he asked, but I've had no response despite his online activity. — Calvin999 08:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Azealia911 talk 18:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Consider making the Song and Artist(s) columns sortable.
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Thanks Azealia, I will get to your comments today. — Calvin999 07:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again you're not getting it. The chart is mentioned by sources independent of Billboard, yes that indicates notability. It's irrelevant that they say the same thing as Billboard, the fact the chart is mentioned in independent news outlet is what is important. If you can produce sources of that ilk for this list then I would have no problem striking my oppose, until then I stand by it. NapHit (talk) 11:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
NapHit (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Addressed all. NapHit — Calvin999 16:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
I've done all of your suggestions FrB.TG. — Calvin999 16:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — Frankie talk 10:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Calvin999 19:43, 10 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 12:28, 28 September 2015 [46].
- Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the list meets the criteria and provides a sourced and well-written listing of her films. Katrina Kaif is one of the most popular actresses in Bollywood. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments. Krish | Talk 03:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from West Virginian
- Support Krish!, I've completed a thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this list and I find that it meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. The image of Kaif is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here, and both captions are suitable. This list is straight forward, and is in keeping with other featured filmography lists of Indian actors and actresses. The references used are also verifiable and in keeping with Wikipedia's citation formatting guidelines. My only suggestion would be to use "box office" consistently throughout, as I noticed in some places, you've hyphenated the term and in other places, you've left a space. Thank you for your hard work in crafting this list, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Pavanjandhyala
- Kaif in 2013 — sounds vague. Make it clear.
- British-Indian actress? Did she act in any English films made by UK filmmakers?
- She is British-Indian as her mother is English and her father is British Kashmiri. Cowlibob (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cowlibob, thanks for responding. Do you think rephrasing it as actress of British-Indian origin would be a better idea? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The source in the lead [[47]] uses British-Indian and so does our GA article on her. I must confess that I'm not clear on how nationalities are determined on Wikipedia. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to solve this by adding "British born Indian actress". I don't know if it is grammatically correct.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it okay, but if someone points at it, do not blame me. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to solve this by adding "British born Indian actress". I don't know if it is grammatically correct.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The source in the lead [[47]] uses British-Indian and so does our GA article on her. I must confess that I'm not clear on how nationalities are determined on Wikipedia. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cowlibob, thanks for responding. Do you think rephrasing it as actress of British-Indian origin would be a better idea? Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- She is British-Indian as her mother is English and her father is British Kashmiri. Cowlibob (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether Ek Tha Tiger can be called a "thriller".
- For JTHJ, is it just SRK? What happened to Anushka Sharma here? Also it is a romantic film directed by Yash Chopra, not a Chopra's romance. :)
- Nothing about the critical and BO reception about Bang Bang! and Phantom is mentioned.
- Both films were panned by critics and were moderate successful as both cannot recover their huge costs. She has starred in only four good films (Namastey London, New York, ZNMD, and Raajneeti) and rest were panned. I don't think we can write this. It would look repetitive, but i have tried to maintain neutrality, wherever i could.Krish | Talk 12:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay then. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one dead link and six redirects here. Kindly fix them.
- Fixed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I require sources that explicitly state the principal photography has commenced in the case of Fitoor, Jagga Jasoos and Kal Jisne Dekha. And, wasn't the last been titled as Baar Baar Dekho?
- It is Sridhar Pillai for reference 2.
- Author not mentioned for reference number 8.
- Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 13 and 17. Why?
Message me once all are done. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks Pavanjandhyala.Krish | Talk 11:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well Krish!, I see that these are not yet done.
- The dead link (reference number 5) isn't fixed yet.
- Can anyone knowledgeable explain me in brief why Ek Tha Tiger is considered a thriller?
- Are you sure you want to call JTHJ a Yash Chopra Romance?
- It is "Sridhar" not "Shridhar" Pillai for reference 2.
- Taran Adarsh and Raja Sen are not linked in reference numbers 14 and 18.
- Fitoor and Jagga Jassoos require sources that filming has begun, like this. Also Baar Baar Dekho's filming has commenced and is not listed here.
- Done. Also, we don't link names in references.Krish | Talk 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We will link them. For example if you want to link Charulatha Mani, we will use "| last=Mani | first=Charulatha | authorlink=Charulatha Mani" in the reference. Also, no source has been provided about Jagga Jasoos filming. The source i gave you for Fitoor isn't formatted correctly. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Linked both the authors (Adarsh at first mention). Also, the same source is cited for both films and it says about her juggling between both films.Krish | Talk 13:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- We will link them. For example if you want to link Charulatha Mani, we will use "| last=Mani | first=Charulatha | authorlink=Charulatha Mani" in the reference. Also, no source has been provided about Jagga Jasoos filming. The source i gave you for Fitoor isn't formatted correctly. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that all my concerns were met by the nominator and now i support this list's promotion to FL status. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a way to reword an instance of "a critical and commercial failure" or try to avoid using "commercial" several times?♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Tweaked the first mention and removed a commercial term from another.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you not rely so much on Bollywood Hungama? Try to replace some with newspaper sources for more variation if you can.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we don't have many trusted sites for Indian films as compared to American such as Rotten Tomatoes, MetacritiC, AllMovie and rest of the others. BH is the only site which has a profile of each and every Bollywood film. I don't think citing reviews can help either. That's why.Krish | Talk 09:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cowlibob
- "Kaif had starred in a series of box-office hits, but her performances in them were generally criticised" What does this sentence mean? Seems out of place.
- Starring opposite Akshay Kumar and Salman Khan are key to her early career. This isn't really emphasised in the lead.
- It's mentioned that Kaif starred opposite Kumar for the first of many films but only the first is mentioned. The majority of films she has starred has been collaborations with these two actors and reading the lead you can't see that. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Among these were two of the highest grossing productions" highest grossing of what, year? all time?
- Have a different image than the main article.
- According to the BH source she played Indu Pratap in Raajneeti.
- Rina Kaif / Popdi Chinchpokli? Did she play two characters in Boom?
Cowlibob (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Krish | Talk 07:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The BH source for Blue doesn't specify that Kaif's character was a cameo.
- The Hindu source for Allari Pidugu doesn't specify that Kaif's character is called Swati.
- I.V. Sasi -->I. V. Sasi
- BH Source for Humko Deewana... says her character is called "Jia Yashwardhan"
- Sify source for Balram doesn't specify her character's name
- BH source for Namastey London says her character is simply "Jasmeet Malhotra"
- Could you go through each of the films and ensure that everything is supported by the references including character name. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.Krish | Talk 12:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
- "Ref(s)" should be "Ref." within the tooltip template.
- That's because some films are cited with multiple refrences.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Name which segment of Bombay Talkies Kaif appeared in, and mention the director of that segment in the main article rather than a footnote. "Multiple directors" appears absurd.
- Added about the segment in which she appeared. But, I think as a whole its a four director film. Its same in all other filmographies.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Archive URLs to avoid link rotting.
- Well, BH sources need not be archived as it's a popular film website, probably satying for the long time. And, the rest, i will do when i have time.Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Krish | Talk 10:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Quite well cited list page. — Cirt (talk) 03:28, 26 September 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) 12:33, 28 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 SchroCat 07:54, 13 October 2015 [48].
- Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criterion. It is well-written, is well-sourced, is comprehensive (includes all major details and doesn't leave anything major out), it is color coded and very accessible, has table sorting, and is stable and not affected by edit wars or content disputes. (On a side note, please be patient in terms of having me address feedback, as I leave for a week-long vacation that lacks internet, so I may not be able to respond until next Saturday). Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now back and available to respond to feedback. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall a very good list and should be an easy pass. I've just made some copyedits, but there are other issues that should be fixed by someone familiar to the system:
A color box for the Kenosha Streetcar would make the style consistent.The planned projects section in the lede needs work. SouthEast Service is deader than dead, STARS needs an accurate factual description (endpoints have changed), and other than the one new station the expansions of the other lines aren't really relevant here.Actually both projects are basically dead, so I updated it as such. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]Consider adding right-justified images of various stations in the main section. Not strictly necessary, but it adds visual interest and provides examples of what the list is actually discussing. Other wise, this looks very good.I added three images to start, albeit I can certainly add a few more as necessary, Pi.1415926535. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I know how to add right-justified images and I can fix the lede regarding the proposed strats. If someone else who knows how to use {{Rail color box}} can figure out how to get a color box for the Kenosha Streetcar service, that would be great. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pi.1415926535:
Do you think you would be able to make a {{Rail color box}} for Kenosha's Streetcar system? I unfortunately am not familiar with the rail color box template and therefore do not feel comfortable making it. Once it is made, however, I can add it to the list accordinglyI have added it to the list, but there is one small problem at {{Kenosha Transit color}} with the column that should display a sample of the color. If you can fix that, then I think all will be good and I think all of your feedback will have been addressed as far as I'm concerned. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason for the rail color box text to be "Kenosha Streetcar Line" with the addition of a new redirect instead of using the existing "Kenosha Streetcar" redirect? Lost on Belmont 3200N1000W (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lost on Belmont: As far as I'm concerned, no. I sort of realized my mistake on the redirect afterward. Feel free to change it accordingly though. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pi.1415926535:
- I created {{KAT color}} before I realized you'd created the other template, and that's functional, but I'm also seeing their same display error. Weird. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pi.1415926535: In that case, I think all of your feedback is addressed. I can add more pictures as needed, but I think for now, it's set. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm qualified alone to sign of on this, but it certainly looks good from my perspective. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds about right, I was simply making sure that all of your feedback is addressed. Since it is, I'll just wait for additional feedback from other editors. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm qualified alone to sign of on this, but it certainly looks good from my perspective. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
- "It is one of three of the Regional Transportation Authority's service boards." The Metra is a service board? Do you mean it is controlled by one of the RTA's three service boards?
- I think you should give the total mileage of the system. Also, is any figure available on the percentage of commuter journeys by rail and car?
- I would personally have preferred a paragraph on the history of the system to one on proposals which came to nothing. When did it start? What was the first line? How did the number of passengers grow?
- It does not sound right to me describing the central terminuses as "inbound", which I would take to mean going towards the centre. How about "inner" and "outer" instead? (Or is this a difference between USEng and BrEng?)
- There is a big gap between the line and station tables due to the vertically arranged images. Why not arrange them horizontally?
- It is obvious, but for completeness you should explain the wheelchair symbol in the key.
- A good list. These points are fairly minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:13, 25 September 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. – SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 13 October 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 12:30, 28 September 2015 [49].
- Nominator(s): Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the article meets the criteria for a featured list, having being reformatted based on several other similar Featured Lists of football club players such as List of Manchester United F.C. players and List of Liverpool F.C. players. The list was previously Featured in 2007 before this status was removed in 2012. All of the issues raised then have now been fixed. Macosal (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Quick comment
|
- Support nice work, all looks good now. If you get a chance, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Greg Chappell/archive2? Harrias talk 19:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Mattythewhite
Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I feel this now meets the criteria. With regards ALeagueStats.com, it appears error-free, well-maintained and comprehensive, so I'm content with its use on this list. One final suggestion: would the nationalities look better left-aligned? Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. Once again I think I agree - the nationalities do look neater when aligned left (although I couldn't find any MoS guideline on this). Thanks again for your suggestions/feedback, Macosal (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @Daniel: would be interested in commenting on this nomination, as the user who first nominated it in April 2007? Mattythewhite (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Brief comments:
- Why is the Hutchinson image alone in using a reference in the caption? The information mentioned is cited in the table so I feel it's unnecessary, and removing it would be more uniform.
- Although the table does list Wilkinson as having the second most appearances, this can't be assumed to mean he was the previous record holder for the club before Hutchinson (they could feasibly both have simultaneously exceeded a previous record before Hutchinson then took the lead, for example, or a previous record could have been beaten by Hutchinson, then by Wilkinson who rose to second). A reference to back up in no uncertain terms that the latter did hold the record would be ideal here.
- Apart from looking at these I'm happy with the overall shape of the article here. GRAPPLE X 08:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, have removed the reference in the caption and reworded the sentence such that it is now reflected by the sources used. Macosal (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That works. If you do turn up a source crediting Wilkinson as being the most capped in his time then by all means, the old wording supported with that would be ideal, but as it is now it's also grand. Happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, have removed the reference in the caption and reworded the sentence such that it is now reflected by the sources used. Macosal (talk) 08:51, 22 September 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) 12:33, 28 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 Giants2008 21:10, 27 September 2015 [50].
A topic that I'm interested in and have quite a bit of knowledge in, so I thought I'd give it a go. Suggestions for improvement are always welcomed, and I'll try to fix anything that comes up in a timely fashion. Kharkiv07 (T) 20:02, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems some of the referencing needs polishing, for example #14 is just a bare link. Mattximus (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd invite comment from Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy on this list. My main issue is that it is a completely different format to the other lists of ships I've seen, such as List of battlecruisers of the United States and List of heavy cruisers of Germany for example. Harrias talk 10:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frequent mention of singleton ships as "classes", which just grates on me. But more importantly, there's no context, just a minimal lede that basically just puts things in sequence. There's no information on the ships themselves and thus no way for a reader to follow the growth and evolution of the carriers. And there's no information on why certain design decisions were made, like in reaction to war experience, or for the nuclear-bomber role, etc. There's certainly no requirement that ship lists use the same format that Parsecboy and I do, but it does convey a lot of information in a reasonably compact layout. This is just an enumeration of American carriers, with pretty pictures, nothing more. This can certainly be rewritten in a more informative manner, but that will require a lot of work that should happen elsewhere before a renomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - my thoughts are basically the same as Sturmvogel's above - there's no need to follow the same pattern that we have established, but there is certainly a lot of information missing that I'd think is necessary. One thing I'd point out is the List of battlecruisers, which is fairly similar to this list, in that I dispensed with blurbs when I wrote it, though it still includes much more information than this list currently does. Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose but there might be work that can be done here. My main suggestions would be to trim the Class column greatly; we know it's the class column, you don't need to say, for example, "Essex-class". "Essex" is sufficient, with a link to the Essex class for the first one. Also, remove the sudden appearance of "supercarrier" in the class column. The refs column is also haphazard; why do some ships warrant specific references but others do not? Is there a general reference that we should accept in lieu of the specifics? --Golbez (talk) 08:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Golbez: What's happening here is that there is an all-encompassing reference at the top of each column, but there are more specifics. Should specifics be eliminated? Kharkiv07 (T) 15:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think a column with displacement and/or size would be appropriate. Something to give it a feeling of how large it is/was. Could be runway length, or humber of hosted airplanes, but that might not be a 1:1 comparison.
- the intro should mention the fate of the carriers. i.e. how many got sunk? should probably mention the pivotal role carriers got in WW2
- some cv-30 and cv-40 lack citations
Nergaal (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief comment I remember seeing an earlier version of this list that indicated what happened with all of the skipped numbers in the CV series. I think it would be helpful to add this information back into the article, especially for notable aircraft carriers that were cancelled prior to commissioning (I'm thinking of primarily USS United States (CVA-58)). I also noticed that the majority of the sources in the article are from the Navy; I'd recommend looking for and adding third-party reliable sources as well. –Grondemar 00:47, 27 September 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 27 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 1:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC) [51].
- Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I began this list a year ago after seeing a Leo Carrillo mini-film festival on his birthday. All I previously knew was his one television series, and that his name is on parks in California in honor of his environmental and preservationist efforts. Somewhat amazed at the extent of his acting career, I also began creating stubs of his movies, if no article yet existed, to understand the diversity in his career. Leo Carrillo had a long career in starring roles and also character roles. I feel like I uncovered a gem of entertainment history, and believe the subject matter is worthy of FL. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great list! DoDung2001 (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from FrB.TG
Resolved comments from Frankie |
---|
...
If you got some spare time and interest, can you comment here (if any)? -- Frankie talk 20:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – nothing else to quibble about. Good job. -- Frankie talk 14:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
– prose looks mostly solid, references check out, image is public domain, and the tables meet WP:MoS standards (per comments by FrB.TG). I made some small tweaks, one moving a wikilink earlier and another to add an abbreviation period to mentions of "Lombardi, Ltd", as "Lombardi, Ltd." is the name listed. The concern for prose I have is in regards to this statement: "Over the course of his movie career, Carrillo made over 80 feature-length films...". According to the listed sources, Carrillo was a star in these movies, but they were made (directed/written) by other people. I'm no movie buff so I could be wrong on this part, but wouldn't it be more appropriate to change "made" to "starred in"? Same concern stems to the "Feature films" section later on with "Feature films of Leo Carrillo". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyclonebiskit, thank you for the edits. He was the star in his earlier movies, but there were many later movies where he was a character actor or otherwise in lesser roles. So, what I did was change "made" to "appeared in". And I made each section consistent by heading the tables "....credits of Leo Carrillo". Does this take care of your concerns? — Maile (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That covers my concerns, and I'm happy to support this list :) Well done, Maile. Only other outstanding concern is that horse's unyielding and terrifying stare will undoubtedly give me nightmares... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That covers my concerns, and I'm happy to support this list :) Well done, Maile. Only other outstanding concern is that horse's unyielding and terrifying stare will undoubtedly give me nightmares... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyclonebiskit, thank you for the edits. He was the star in his earlier movies, but there were many later movies where he was a character actor or otherwise in lesser roles. So, what I did was change "made" to "appeared in". And I made each section consistent by heading the tables "....credits of Leo Carrillo". Does this take care of your concerns? — Maile (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WillC
- Lead
- "He was best known to 1950s children's television in the United States as the Cisco Kid's sidekick Pancho" - A bit awkward of sentence. I suggest "He was best known in the United States as the Cisco Kid's sidekick Pancho on 1950s children's television"--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Y Done. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "For his contributions to the entertainment industry, on February 8, 1960 Carrillo received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame." - For flow purposes, I suggest "For his contributions to the entertainment industry, Carrillo received two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame on February 8, 1960."--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Y Done. — Maile (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest killing the horse for it is a demon, from the spawn of hell. Make it into glue and send into the sun before it steals the soul of our beloved children.--WillC 13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about????? — Maile (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was being funny. The horse in the picture has a stare only Satan would love.--WillC 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about????? — Maile (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Stage
- Sorting of dates is all wrong. It is sorting alphabetically instead of by the actual dates. August 1923 does not come after January 1926. Opening Date and Closing Dates need fixing.--WillC 13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Y I reworked this so it's only the year, not the months. Sorts like it should now. — Maile (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Television
- Film shorts
- Feature films
- Role column does not sort like the rest of the columns do.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Y Done. — Maile (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See also
- I'd probably link to some Cisco Kid stuff here.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Y I added a link to the Cisco Kid, but anything else out there doesn't seems that relevant to me for here. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes
- Citations
- Looked into them, don't really recognize any of them. I'm just going to take them in good faith. I assume they've been discussed.
- References
- Fine with me. I'm iffy on everything that is published whether book or online (considering The Creature from Jekyll Island exists) but I'll take these in good faith.--WillC 02:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- External links
- I can't think of anything else that would go here other than some sort of template. Maybe a Cisco Kid template would be relevant enough.--WillC 13:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought of a Cisco Kid template, because I've also done the Duncan Renaldo filmography. But one does not currently exist. And the more I look into the individual films and other cultural references, it would be a major deal to research and create right now. The Cisco Kid has been around for a century, since 1907. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fine, just a suggestion for the most part to make the article better. Most reviewers just check what is already there, I try to think of ideas on what to add to make it more comprehensive.--WillC 21:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I thought of a Cisco Kid template, because I've also done the Duncan Renaldo filmography. But one does not currently exist. And the more I look into the individual films and other cultural references, it would be a major deal to research and create right now. The Cisco Kid has been around for a century, since 1907. — Maile (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from WillC--WillC 02:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. — Maile (talk) 12:16, 14 September 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) 01:41, 21 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 12:29, 28 September 2015 [52].
- Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The 2015 Tour de France finished two days ago. This is a list that shows all the teams and the riders who participated. All the riders are shown first, including their placing in the general classification, and are then grouped by team and summarised by nation below.
This is my first attempt at preparing and nominating a featured list – I've never come near this page before. I've mostly followed another FL (List of teams and cyclists in the 2009 Giro d'Italia) as a guide, but it's fairly old so I don't know how much it reflects modern practice. Your advice and criticism is very much appreciated. Relentlessly (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tables review - Relentlessly, the tables need "scope" formatting, as explained in MOS:DTT. Also, the table for "By nationality" has no referencing on it. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Maile66 and many thanks for the review. I think I've added the
scope
as required in that page? I've also added some references to the lead section of that paragraph, but all the data in the table replicates content and references from above. Does this address your concerns? - A question, looking at that MOS page, is whether it should be using table summaries (for the "by rider" section) and table captions (for the "by team" section). Could you comment?
- Many thanks again for your comments. Relentlessly (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, first of all, let me say that I should have given you more clear instructions. There is also scope=row to be done (and more tedious to do each row). I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me about the summaries/captions. But I think FL List of Tour de France general classification winners is a good example of what you are looking for. The cycling FL I find seem to have all been done in 2011. The individual tables aren't referenced as yours are, but in passing FL or FA, consistency is noticed. Consistency is referencing, also, so I'm satisfied with the references you added to the lead paragraph of "By nationality". — Maile (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again, Maile66. I was going by the footnote on that page that suggests only adding
scope="row"
toth
elements. But I have updated the page with your suggested change (and that's what regex is for!). WRT summaries, I'm wondering whether doing this would be better than what I've done so far? Relentlessly (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again, Maile66. I was going by the footnote on that page that suggests only adding
- Well, first of all, let me say that I should have given you more clear instructions. There is also scope=row to be done (and more tedious to do each row). I'm not exactly sure what you are asking me about the summaries/captions. But I think FL List of Tour de France general classification winners is a good example of what you are looking for. The cycling FL I find seem to have all been done in 2011. The individual tables aren't referenced as yours are, but in passing FL or FA, consistency is noticed. Consistency is referencing, also, so I'm satisfied with the references you added to the lead paragraph of "By nationality". — Maile (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm happy to give you the first Support on this nomination. As for your comment about that which might be better - I say, as long as you stay within the MOS and are consistent throughout, take the easiest route. Wikipedia always has several different ways of arriving at the same point. Good luck to you. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "team" part of the title is superfluous since it is pretty obvious this is a list targeted towards cyclists. Also, I believe the final position entry should include the times. Nergaal (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it lists teams and then cyclists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Nergaal, thanks for commenting. I didn't create the article, and its name is consistent with other Grand Tour cycling lists. I think "teams" refers to two things: the list of teams at the top (relevant because each cycling race has a different selection of teams entered) and the listings of teams (the "by teams" section). As to the times, I can add them if you think it adds significant value to the article. The trouble is that there is endless data you can add – points, mountain points, other standings. It'll take a little while, but I think it's a reasonable thing to add: I'll get on and do it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal I've now added all the times. Relentlessly (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More:
- #61 is lacking the time
- should DSQ-14 be listed above DNF-14?
- listing riders by their jersey numbers kinda makes sense, but they are already listed in that order in the by team section. would the list look better if they were listed in order of classification?
- the teams section is missing the nationalities
- perhaps the likely rationale for wild cards would be useful since this is a "list of teams"
- the "by x" sections should be merged into a "Cyclists" one, then the "by" part would make sense
- intro should mention that x nationalities were represented, with France about 20% of the riders
- isn't this the first time Eritrea was represented?
- perhaps mention briefly the biggest absentees?
- Quintana won two jerseys?
Nergaal (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your additional comments, Nergaal. One by one:
- Done, thanks.
- Yes, that's how it appears in ProCyclingStats. He was disqualified during the stage.
- I can see your point, though I'm not sure it makes much odds, as they are very easy to re-sort! It's a list of the riders, though, rather than a report of the general classification: it's more a start list than a finishing list.
- The teams' nationalities? They are frequently irrelevant: teams do not represent their countries in any sense, and are often misleading. For example, BMC is registered as American but is based in Switzerland.
- Added.
- Agreed, done.
- Done.
- Done.
- I'm not sure who this would be or how it would be phrased without going into OR. Marcel Kittel is the most obvious absentee, perhaps along with Philippe Gilbert, but all the contenders for the overall classification were present. Very happy to think again if you think this is important.
- Removed the duplicate.
- Thanks for your thorough review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support you deleted Quintana's name though. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Tables review
|
- Support, thanks for your work, nice list. Harrias talk 18:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Had the pleasure of witnessing the first two stages in Utrecht, was a fantastic race!
- "All seventeen UCI WorldTeams were automatically invited and
wereobliged to attend the race." - "France provided the the largest number (41 riders)." sentence needs revising
- "38 of the riders failed to finish the race, so 160 riders completed the final stage in Paris." I would flip this sentence around, so it states the number that finished first. I feel it will read better as a result
- "who had also won the race in 2013." -> who won the 2013 Tour.
- I'm not sure why you use
data-sort-value="Nibali, Vincenzo"
when we have the{{sortname}}
template for that? - Should the time be presented as it is in List of Tour de France general classification winners, with apostrophes?
- No need for the by team tables to be less than 100% font size
- they also need rowscopes per MOS:DTT
- Should be no capitals in references, regardless of how they are presented on the web page
- This page is very long at 142,000 bytes, one solution would be to use this page as a general reference and then cite those riders who didn't finish the Tour in the table. Would help with loading times on the page, as it lags a bit for me
NapHit (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I'm on holiday and unable to deal with these substantially fit the next two weeks. (I never expected this would take so long...) A couple of points: I'm using data-sort-value because it's recommended on
{{hs}}
, which was used previously. I programmatically converted it using the DEFAULTSORT value for each page for consistency. I added row scope, but it was removed by another user who I presumed knew more about table formatting. The rest I can't respond to until 20 September, unfortunately... Relentlessly (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply] - The other thing that occurs to me, NapHit, is that the individual citations also support the riders' ages. I don't see how they can be removed. Relentlessly (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True, although you could add a note saying to verify a rider's age you can click on the link to their name in the classifications ref? Also make sure the dashes in the refs are en dashes and not normal dashes, I noticed a lot are the latter. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The riders ages and withdrawals can be taken from the team pages (under the "THE RIDERS" tab). BaldBoris 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good suggestion, BaldBoris, and I've done it for the rider details, though I've kept the withdrawal citations because they frequently add useful information and 56 citations is perfectly reasonable. Relentlessly (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The riders ages and withdrawals can be taken from the team pages (under the "THE RIDERS" tab). BaldBoris 18:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- True, although you could add a note saying to verify a rider's age you can click on the link to their name in the classifications ref? Also make sure the dashes in the refs are en dashes and not normal dashes, I noticed a lot are the latter. NapHit (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, NapHit, I'm back. Your comments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 are fixed. I'm reluctant to use
{{sortname}}
because it would have no visible or technical effect. The times could be presented as in List of Tour de France general classification winners, but that would contravene MOS:UNIT. I realise that cycling articles (including mine) have in the past used the apostrophe format; I'm very happy to go to that if you think it's better. Finally, I disagree with your suggestion for indirect referencing because, so far as I can tell, it is not supported by Wikipedia's policies on referencing. I appreciate and look forward to your response! Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- I've used
{{sortname}}
for 2012, and it works fine. Some other things I've done differently is put the jerseys on the right side of the rider and the team ones next to the riders, both of which I think look tidier in terms of alignment, and put the team code in parentheses. There are other small things, but nothing major. BaldBoris 11:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks, BaldBoris. I will indeed use
{{sortname}}
in future, but it seems pointless to go to the work of changing it here, since the effect would be precisely nil! With your other changes, I agree and, for the sake of consistency I'll change this page over later on today. I'm very happy to do minor tweaks here as well, so as to get a perfect template for future lists, if you have any... Relentlessly (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- OK, I've done some minor fixes to the tables, but there's some others that I think need doing in "By starting number"; center align No. and link DNF/DNS for consistancy with "By teams". BaldBoris 18:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the withdrawals all need to either be in italics or not, including the legend (as with the 2009 Giro). I'm not too sure what the need for the italics is though? I'd say uninitialised. "By teams" should have the "Rider" header. Is "hr" in the times just your preference? Because I've never seen it elsewhere (apart from the articles you've done). In this case especially, I think it clogs up an already congested space. Lastly, I do understand why "Stage wins" doesn't have a total, but for some reason it just looks odd without. BaldBoris 10:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- BaldBoris, thanks for your detailed comments. I have centred No. and linked DNF/DNS/DSQ. I have deitalicised it (I presume that's what you mean, not uninitialised). I have indeed used "hr" everywhere, because I thought it was normal in English, though I have since noticed the difference from most of Wikipedia. Neither style is recommended in MOS:UNIT, by the way. I'll change it if you think it's important. To reduce the congestion I have separated time out into a separate column. Finally, I have added the total to the table of stage wins and a note to explain why it's only 20. (This confusion was why I didn't include it before.) Any thoughts on these changes? Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that all cycling articles should use the same style. Especially in this case, to match that used in 2015 Tour de France. Position can now be now be changed to Pos., to reduce space, and I think the empty cell should em dash (like GT GC timelines). BaldBoris 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, BaldBoris. Relentlessly (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think that all cycling articles should use the same style. Especially in this case, to match that used in 2015 Tour de France. Position can now be now be changed to Pos., to reduce space, and I think the empty cell should em dash (like GT GC timelines). BaldBoris 14:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- BaldBoris, thanks for your detailed comments. I have centred No. and linked DNF/DNS/DSQ. I have deitalicised it (I presume that's what you mean, not uninitialised). I have indeed used "hr" everywhere, because I thought it was normal in English, though I have since noticed the difference from most of Wikipedia. Neither style is recommended in MOS:UNIT, by the way. I'll change it if you think it's important. To reduce the congestion I have separated time out into a separate column. Finally, I have added the total to the table of stage wins and a note to explain why it's only 20. (This confusion was why I didn't include it before.) Any thoughts on these changes? Relentlessly (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, BaldBoris. I will indeed use
- I've used
*Comment: Is there a reason for the extensive legend which then does not get used? Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thisisnotatest I don't understand. The legend is used. Could you clarify? Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Relentlessly, I'm sorry. I missed it. Looking again I see it is used. I've struck out my comment. Thisisnotatest (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thisisnotatest I don't understand. The legend is used. Could you clarify? Relentlessly (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overall I'm happy enough to support this one. I'm not 100% sure that the jersey icons are ideal given that some are different only by colour, but to me I would suppose the mouse-over text alleviates this, so it's not objection-worthy. GRAPPLE X 09:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks like my comments have been addressed and the list has really improved as a result. Great work. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 27 September 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) 12:33, 28 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 PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [53].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2014 Indian biographical sports drama film Mary Kom starring Priyanka Chopra as the eponymous boxer. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 17:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support .DoDung2001 (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, a sockmaster. —Vensatry (ping) 19:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note for the delegates, that DoDung2001 has been indef blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I can't find anything wrong with the list.
- Strong Support : Nice piece of work. Brilliant job and keep up your good work you are an asset to Wikipedia. Daan0001 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Good work on the list, Prashant. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Prashant!, congratulations on a job well done on this list. The image of Chopra is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use here. The list conforms to the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and its lede conforms to the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, so many supports. I must have done something right. Thank you everyone.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The second sentence of the opening para needs to be rephrased for clarity.Not sure if "while" and "whereas" can be used in the same sentence."the film was released on 5 September 2014." - where?- Is the TIFF held out of the world? —Vensatry (ping) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont see the issue here? TIFF helds in Toronto? Also release refers to worldwide? What's going on here?Daan0001 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the TIFF held out of the world? —Vensatry (ping) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions @Vensatry:?—Prashant 07:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It was premiered at the TIFF on 4 Sep 2014 before having a theatrical release (worldwide if I'm right) the next day. —Vensatry (ping) 11:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 17:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suggestions @Vensatry:?—Prashant 07:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The film received generally positive reviews from critics and was a commercial success" - This needs multiple reliable sources"Best Film and Best Actress for Chopra" Comma needed after Best Film"Dialogue of the Year" - ditto- This source, cited in the article, states the film received seven nominations at the 21st Screen Awards whereas the article says eight. Furthermore, 'Best Actress – Popular Choice' isn't verified by any of the sources.
- See reference number 22. —Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not able to find. —Vensatry (ping) 12:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Source number 23 clearly verifies it. After adding another source this became 23 as previously it was 22.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but the source doesn't say she won the award. Looks like it lists only the nominees. —Vensatry (ping) 13:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: The article does not claim her win for Best Actress Popular, she was only nominated and the source verifies it.—Prashant 13:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. But then, two of the sources which you've used says the film got only seven nominations, excluding the popular choice award. Looks like the category doesn't having nominations. —Vensatry (ping) 15:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: Popular Awards nominations are declared along with those Jury nominations. It's just that (you know) Indian media does not cover these things. I hope its clear now.—Prashant 11:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is two of the sources doesn't include that cat. in the nominees list. They say the film received seven nominations. —Vensatry (ping) 17:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes 'Arab Indo Bollywood Awards' and 'Jagran Film Festival' notable ceremonies?
- These awards are supported by secondary sources and the latter is even present in this
featured list as well.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. Would like to have the opinion of others. —Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cowlibob: Would you like to say something about this?—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at Cowlibob's comments here. I hope its helpful.—Prashant 11:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: I was pinged here. I shall simply state what I said in the other nomination. If the award ceremony is able to be redlinked. Per WP:REDLINK, it needs be verifiable and notable (i.e. meet WP:GNG). If it was covered in depth by reliable sources i.e. not just a rundown of winners and nominees so much that you could build an article on it (which is the reason for redlinking) then it should be included in the table of accolades. I haven't looked at these particular ones but I think if sources could be provided supporting notability then they can be included. Cowlibob (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to look at Cowlibob's comments here. I hope its helpful.—Prashant 11:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cowlibob: Would you like to say something about this?—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced. Would like to have the opinion of others. —Vensatry (ping) 12:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The film never won a Bronze Horse, rather was awarded at the Stockholm International Film Festival Junior. This year's ceremony of the Stockholm International Film Festival is yet to take place.Link the first occurrence of all publishers in refs.
—Vensatry (ping) 09:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: Done and thanks for your inputs. It really means a lot.—Prashant 13:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment
- What makes 'businessofcinema.com' a RS?
—Vensatry (ping) 15:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced it with a TOI source.—Prashant 17:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the delegates – Highly displeased with the nominator's behaviour, so not willing to continue my review. He first came up with this a week ago after I left my comments here, and now has labelled my review as silly. —Vensatry (ping) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the delegates - I didn't labelled his review silly but his one point. The film received 8 nominations at the 2015 Screen Awards, however, this user has an issue—why? 8 nomination are mentioned, and not 7 (according to him). The eighth nomination is cited by another source, and despite knowing that, he was going on and on. The list is perfectly cited by good sources. He even questioned things, which are already present in other FLs, something that is very frustrating. Plus, this user took more than 10 days to review this and was still not clear what he was doing. He could have stretched it to 21st of next month. I tried to resolve his comments politely, but this was the final straw.—Prashant 14:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot pester somebody to review/re-visit nominations. If you go through the history, it would be quite evident that I wasn't abandoning your nomination. So you cannot offend me for not turning up. Your behaviour towards reviewers in FACs/FLCs is a well-known thing, I'm not surprised. —Vensatry (ping) 15:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
Generally pretty good, although not enough to warrant the number of supports at the top of this nomination without any reservation.
|
- Support meets the criteria. Harrias talk 07:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
- Spaced hyphens should be replaced with en-dash, per WP:DASH, e.g. ref 2.
- What makes all the redlinked awards notable enough to be included here?
- The Rambling Man Yes they are notable as these awards are widely covered by the secondary sources and see the above discussion for more informatiion. Thanks.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- " in Ningbo City" our article just calls it Ningbo, and it's worth pointing out that this is in China.
- "BIG Star Most Entertaining Actor (Film) Debut – Male" is "BIG Star" part of the name of the award? It doesn't appear in the other BIG Star award titles.
- "Star of the Year Award – Female" appears to be called "Stardust Award for Star of the Year – Female".
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.—Prashant 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Please check each one off. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done now. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 15:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. Please check each one off. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please make sure all retrieval dates use the same format. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 7 title is incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and let me tell you all retrieval dates use same format. Thanks The Rambling Man.—Prashant 12:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note - Prashant! (now Krish!) left a note on my talk page about this nom that I was replying to, but I thought I should put it here so that everyone can see it. He was asking why this nom is still open after 35 days, when there were 5 supports in the first week:
- TRM hasn't returned to support or not. 35 days is not that long- while we'd like everything to be done in a month or less, the truth is that many nominations don't get closed until closer to 2 months. Finally, delegates do not just count votes- you had 5 supports in the first week, yes (one struck for being made by a sockmaster), but given that they had no actual review attached to them but were followed by extensive reviews by Vensatry and Harrias (and TRM), the only conclusion that I can reach is that they didn't actually review the list- they skimmed it at best and slapped on a support. I'd count that as more like 2 supports, given that I recognize a couple of them as people who've done actual reviews before. So the nom is really at 3 supports, one reviewer who left, and an unfinished review. And that's if we were just counting supports- which we're not; if all we needed was 4 supports and no opposes with no ongoing reviews, I could code up a bot to do the work for me. We're looking for actual reviews which end in support votes, not just counting bolded words. Bare supports followed by real reviews are not usually useful. Please pass this message along; the two areas we've been seeing this a lot in the past few months are music lists and Indian film lists- bare supports are not helpful when issues are present, even if the reviewer is acting in good faith; please spend 5-10 minutes going through the list in more detail, or else the !vote will likely be discounted. --PresN 22:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: What's the matter now?—Prashant 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Dr. Blofeld
- Delink China. MOS advises against linking countries like that I believe.
- Are Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards and Stockholm International Film Festival Junior likely to ever become blue links? If so create them or delink them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards are not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia, remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say we will never have a page here. I just can't go and create a page because I'm very busy right now. These awards are widely supported by secondary sources and have enough notability.—Prashant 05:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If Priyadarshini Academy Global Awards are not going to be notable enough for Wikipedia, remove them. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support But I think you should make the extra effort to start the missing links. I'd feel happier it was notable if we had an article rather than shutting off the links.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'll create those articles as soon as I have time.—Prashant 18:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kailash
- Remove consecutive links per WP:SEAOFBLUE.
- Actually that occurs because the category has a large name. National Film Award for Best Popular Film Providing Wholesome Entertainment see.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. The problem was in the lead, with Indian biographical sports drama, where I unlinked "Indian". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The film was premiered"? Remove the "was". It only works in cases like "was released".
- Seems you have rectified it. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are there so many red linked awards? That should indicate their lack of notability.
- No. someone told me to red link them so that someone could create a page. No problems with the notabilty. It was widely discussed above.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work unlinking them. Someone will create pages for those awards anyway. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ref(s)" should be (in syntax mode), {{tooltip|Ref.References}}.
- Refrences are in this syntax mode ({{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}), much like other FLs.—Prashant
- It's good now. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Does any other awards page FL have something like "List of Bollywood films of 2014"? Kailash29792 (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Yes, all Bollywood FLs has that link.—Prashant 19:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all my comments addressed, this article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 21 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 promoted by PresN 20:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC) [54].[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) [55].[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.
Nominations for removal
- Notified: Ericleb01 Arsenikk, WikiProject Africa
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has been tagged for update (for over a year), some descriptions are empty, some are straight up copied from the unesco website with no attribution, some images need alt text and is straight up missing some world heritage sites. 48JCL public (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remain neutral in the voting and get to work fixing/updating the article. Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging Tone for awareness, as they've been working on World Heritage Sites lists for quite a while now. --PresN 20:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. As mentioned, I've been working on those lists for a while and somehow the continent-wide lists are out of date and of bad style, compared to what the current FLs use. Also, due to its sheer size, the list is really difficult to maintain properly, as new sites get added every year, endangered list is getting updated occasionally etc. Having coordinates in the table is rather pointless since these sites are often not limited to a single location. Area is also not very informative, and sometimes even missing. Pictures are formatted randomly, sometimes centred, sometimes not. And technically, tentative sites should be mentioned, which probably more than doubles the list. I'd suggest trimming this list down to only a list of sites per country, without descriptions or images, and links to country articles. Speaking of, lists for Peru and Madagascar are not in a good shape and the list in danger is so-so (mostly excessive info in the table, as mentioned above), although better than this one. The three I mentioned are fixable, but this one probably requires too much work to be taken care during the FLRC process. --Tone 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several FLs on WHS. For example, List of World Heritage Sites in the United States. Have a look ;) Tone 19:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Do you have a model to recommend that I base edits to this list off of, formatting-wise? Pliny the Elderberry (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified:
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]
- Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [56] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]