Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sahara4u (talk | contribs) at 13:07, 9 December 2014 (→Nominations: Adding List of Pakistan women Test cricketers). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 at peer review 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. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; 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 main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects |
Featured list tools: | ||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
Source reviews needed
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:58, 19 January 2015 [1].
List of Pakistan women Test cricketers
- Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another women cricketers' list based on List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers (an existing FLC which has significant support) and List of South Africa women Test cricketers. I've worked on the list and I believe this is according to the FLC criteria. Constructive comments and suggestion will be appreciated! Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It meets the FLC criteria and it is a well-referenced list. --Carioca (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*should cite page number of the PDF where the relevant info is found.
|
- PDF refs. should have page nos.
- Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing like page no. 10 in the document. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the opening sentence is even partly verified by the specified part of the document. —Vensatry (ping) 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: I think the two references cover the sentence. Lets see what say Harrias, Lugnuts and The Rambling Man? --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the opening sentence is even partly verified by the specified part of the document. —Vensatry (ping) 17:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing like page no. 10 in the document. —Vensatry (ping) 19:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... between two of the leading cricketing nations" would mean that Women's Test Cricket is played between the top two teamsHave a better caption for the image- Clarified. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Batool Fatima holds the record for the most number of dismissals with five" - Is this an overall record or just a Pakistani?- Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Runs scored per dismissal -> Average runs scored per dismissalWhy dashes sort (descendeing order) before figures in the Bowling Average column?- So what do you recommend? --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So what do you recommend? --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (ping) 17:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vensatry: I've fixed your concerns. Please have a look now. --Khadar Khani (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
Harrias talk 08:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, nice quick work, thanks. The prose seems a little like a set of facts in bullet point form, but I know it's difficult given that they've only played three matches, and they don't receive a great deal of media coverage. Harrias talk 17:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank for the support! @Harrias: nice to see a green RC since long! --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:22, 13 January 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) 12:07, 19 January 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 21:20, 4 January 2015 [2].
List of Scheduled Monuments in South Somerset
Following the promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset to FL and nomination of List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane this is the next in the series (the third of seven), using the same format. As with the others it includes scheduled monuments from the Neolithic to more recent times, including photographs where available.— Rod talk 17:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pipe link to Cluniac Reforms. Looks very good but does the column with the info in have to be so skinny?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done Cluniac Reforms, but I'm not sure which column are you seeing as skinny? If its the "Notes" column it is wide on my screen (I use large monitors). The width of the columns is not set & (I presume) autoformatted depending on your monitor. When I started this set of lists I was asked to add in the notes column, rather than make the reader go to the article for more info.— Rod talk 21:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- On my monitor the notes column has a new line for every two or three words, making it look stretched vertically.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Setting the column width doesn't seem to make any difference - this may be because of Template:EH listed building header. Asking for help there.— Rod talk 18:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Forcing the width at 20% would make the column narrower on my setup, where it currently occupies about 25% of the width of the table. In any case, I don't think this a a FL issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do on those too but they're not so bad because a lot of the summaries are shorter. This stands out more as more of the entries have longer summaries. 20% set I think would really look better if you're going to have more than a couple with some sentences, especially as a lot of readers will have smaller screens or phones.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We could try setting the width of the column (perhaps 20%) but can you tell me if you get the same effect on List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset &/or List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane?— Rod talk 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have the same as Dr. Blofeld and also have to scroll table right/left as too wide as it stands. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Shall I start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates as I'm not aware of any other discussion forum for list layout issues - the MOS & tables guidance don't seem to help as far as I can see.— Rod talk 21:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like there is no real solution to this one at the moment, not really a sticking point for the promotion of this list. May be worth discussing this on a wider forum to see if anyone has any ideas how to improve things. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm now confused. On Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset/archive1 I was asked to add the notes column & did this (& it passed FL). I did the same on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane/archive1 which has 3 supports & I used the same here. Would you like to look at the ones I'm currently adding notes to (List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor, List of Scheduled Monuments in Sedgemoor & List of Scheduled Monuments in West Somerset) where I'm adding notes but they don't yet show. I'd appreciate some further guidance on the best way forward.— Rod talk 21:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor point on ref 3 the "retrieved" needs capitalising as per other references. Keith D (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support Looks good to me now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "current legislation" - this is recentism, which is frowned on.
- "Muchelney Abbey, which was founded in the 7th or 8th century," The source says 762. In the full entry below you have date as 12-16C, and 7C in the text.
- I think this is because of a foundation around 762, however the surviving buildings are largely 15th century (according to [http://webapp1.somerset.gov.uk/HER/details.asp?prn=54318 this source).— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stoke sub Hamdon Priory was formed in 1304 as a chantry college rather than a priory." I found this - and the full entry below - confusing. It says below secular college, but neither word is used in the usual modern sense. Looking at the EH entry, secular means priests in the community as opposed to monks in a monastery, and college in this case means a group of secular priests attached to a chantry chapel. A clearer explanation would be helpful.
- "Cary Castle was built either by Walter of Douai or by his son Robert." Perhaps worth saying around 1100 - presumably it was definitely pre-Anarchy.
- I've added "late 11th or early 12th century" as that is what the Pastscape source says - I don't there is any better evidence for the date.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bruton Abbey was originally founded as a Benedictine priory by Algar, Earl of Cornwall in about 1005." This is dubious. Pastscape says: "According to Leland, it was formerly a Benedictine Monastery founded circa 1005, but there is no mention of such in the Domesday Survey." Algar, Earl of Cornwall does not sound like an early 11C title.
- This source has Algar, as does this book and this website. This one has it founded in 1142, which is strange as this one (also from British History online) does have Algar.— Rod talk 21:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The mentions of Algar all seem to be 19C sources, including BH online. I doubt whether the earldom of Cornwall existed before the Conquest and Earl of Cornwall says the same. You could say may have existed before the Conquest, but I don't think anything more definite. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find lots more sources for Algar of Cornwal - although it appears there may be some debate about his title. This book (from 1769) says "ALGER Earl of Cornwall, AD 1046 founded the abbey of Bruton. There seem to have been several people named Ælfgar in the 10th & 11th centuries & other variations on the name. Gazeter 1868 says "About the year 1005 a monastery was founded here by Algar, Earl of Cornwall, for monks of the Benedictine order, which was subsequently converted into a Dominican priory by William do Mohun." This recent book (2011) mentions Earl Ælfgar in association with manors in Somerset. I think it is verifiable in its current form, but would welcome further comment. One last thought is that Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia may have held (or claimed) other titles & could possibly be the person concerned. There may also be some confusion based on: "The Laud Chronicle (E) — 1048 [1051] "And then Odda was appointed earl over Devon, and over Somerset, and over Dorset, and over Cornwall; and Aelfgar, earl Leofric's son, was given the earldom which Harold had had." I don't really know where else to go with this.— Rod talk 21:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [4] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've revised as you suggested. Help with ensuring the actual article at Bruton Abbey reflects the sources would be appreciated.— Rod talk 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources for Algar are all very old and not RS. Ælfgar, Earl of Mercia is very unlikely as he died in 1061 and with the life expectancy then he can hardly have been old enough to found an abbey in 1005. It could be Æthelmær the Stout who was ealdorman of the western provinces (south-west England) from 1005, but there is no source for this. According to Pastscape at [4] the 1005 date is from Leland, who is 16th century. I would cite Pastscape and say 12C but possibly pre-Conquest. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Bowl barrow known as `Wimble Toot'" Shown as Bronze Age even though latest research suggests it is Norman. "The interpretation of the site's original purpose has changed over time." This sentence is superfluous. Repetition of "originally".
- Hamdon Hill camp. I think it should be made clear that the evidence of mesolithic and neolithic occupation pre-dates the camp and has nothing to do with it.
- Hillfort 475m south of Howley Farm. Repetition of univallate.
- The final item "Village Cross" is out of alphabetical order.
- Another first rate list. A few nit-picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A fine list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support an excellent list. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, nice to see a practical approach to some of the monuments, I don't suppose that even many inclusionists would agree that we need an article about a "A bowl barrow approximately 16 metres (52 ft) in diameter and 3 metres (9.8 ft) high." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is at least one inconsistent date in the refs, so it may be worth just checking to make sure they are all formatted correctly. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 3 January 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. As to the proposed discussion on the contents, which was mooted earlier today, I suggest the FLC page would be a good place to go in the first instance, with notifications in the appropriate projects. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 4 January 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 20:15, 28 January 2015 [5].
List of A-League hat-tricks
I am nominating this for featured list because it exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to List of Premier League hat-tricks - an existing FL. 2nyte (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - is there really any need to break out "The A-League, created in 2005, is the top tier of Australian league football" as a note at the bottom? The start date of 2005 is mentioned in the opening sentence anyway, and I really don't think the article would be drowning in text if the first clause was expanded to "Since the commencement of the A-League, the top tier of Australian league football, in 2005–06....." and the note removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
- Do nationalities need a flag? Can't be sure, per MOS:ICON.
- "the top and only professional association football league" sounds naff, if it's the only then it has to be the top. Suggest a rephrase.
- "in 2005–06," nope, that's the inaugural season.
- "over twenty players" more than.
- "in A-League matches" no need to repeat A-League here.
- "by scoring three (or more) goals" why not just "scoring at least three" or "three or more"?
- "The first was scored" ->" The first hat-trick was scored..."
- "Five players have scored more than three goals in a match" missed where how many people have scored a hat-trick...
- "There have been two hat-tricks scored in one match on one occasion" clumsy, e.g. "On one occasion, two hat-tricks have been scored in a single match...."
- "only player to have scored a hat-trick after coming on as a substitute." no ref.
- "Shane Smeltz has scored the most hat-tricks," no need to relink or repeat his first name. Apply to others.
- "a record 4 " four.
- Check refs for WP:DASH violations, e.g. ref 32.
- Make sure works are properly formatted, e.g. refs 11, 28 should have The Sydney Morning Herald.
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Still need to fix the refs, not sure what to do to fix WP:DASH violations. Regarding flags for nationalities, not sure if I should remove them. Also, the opening line reads "the top and only professional association football league".--2nyte (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH. The MOS would say that we don't need flags if they're unnecessary, i.e. they over-emphasise nationality. As for the "top and only" it depends how you read it, hence the confusion. Is it "top and only" (i.e. a singular league) or is it "top, and the only professional"...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I loved this list. It has good information, an appropriate style, and media.
- Ref 24 redirects away from the intended piece. 21 is dead.
- The last line in the first paragraph (Besart Berisha's fastest) looks like it might be better somewhere in the second. The first paragraph is primarily about the number of goals scored while the second looks like other interesting tidbits.
- I'm under the impression that alt text is no longer required but it is cool if you feel like it
- The images seem just a little cluttered on my screen. Removing one should be considered but I'll leave it up to you to decide if it would hurt more than it does good. Would using the
upright
option help? See the tutorial [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Upright_images]. - Is the external link necessary? Maybe under WP:ELMAYBE #4. I'll also differ to your judgement on this.
Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (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) 20:22, 28 January 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 20:15, 28 January 2015 [6].
List of colleges and universities in Delaware
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria for promotion to Featured List status. This list also exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to other featured lists of universities and colleges including: List of colleges and universities in Michigan, List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C., and List of colleges and universities in West Virginia. -- Caponer (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- @Caponer: Think this is the third time I've reviewed on of these. Only a few dozen to go!
- "Delaware does not have a medical school, however, the Delaware" - that however is bothering me. I'd replace it with "does not have a medical school, but the Delaware..."
- And... that's it. Huh, guess it's easier once you've done a few lists of the same type (plus this one's shorter). Consider archiving your online links with something like archive.org or webcitation.org so that future changes in content/removals of pages don't affect your citations. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the FLC for Hugo Award for Best Fancast further down the page. --PresN 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Massive lead considering the size of the list. Not sure, yet, how to best rejig the information, perhaps a shorter lead, and then a couple of decent paragraphs in a following section.
- The Rambling Man, thank you for your thoughtful review and for taking the time to do so. I've re-examined the lede per your comments, and I feel that despite the list's brevity, the lede is of comparable size to the ledes of similar lists. Even though this list is much shorter, the lede must characterize the institutions by oldest, smallest, largest, etc. Subsequent paragraphs outside the lede are usually discouraged in Featured Lists. Is this a deal-breaker? -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would prefer to see the "plainrowheaders" so we don't have centrally justified bold links for each college.
- It would be good to learn a little about the defunct colleges, rather than just the table and a single sentence saying they used to exist.
- "List of defunct institutions in Delaware" not strictly true, add some context. Similarly the other table's "caption".
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the defunct institutions as it detracts from the list topic. -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, more accurately you've begun an edit war to delete that section without trying to even discuss the issue with other editors. Not cool. And you didn't even bother to drop a note about this nomination in the article Talk page where other editors might be able to see why you're making these changes. WTF? ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ElKevbo, I apologize for not leaving suitable comments or notification prior to removing the defunct institutions from the list. I in no way meant to cause an edit war. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005, and have not yet found myself in such a war, and would prefer to keep it that way. I sincerely apologize. With that said, the defunct institutions have been deleted as this is a listing of current post-secondary institutions in Delaware. -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is the justification for deleting references to the notable institutions that have closed? Including them provides critical historical context indicating that today's higher ed institutions and systems did not spring forth fully formed and have significantly changed in the past couple of centuries.
- And why do you get veto power over what is and is not included in this article? ElKevbo (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ElKevbo, the defunct list has been reinstated. The Rambling Man, I'll begin working on including your suggested edits to the defunct list. -- Caponer (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ElKevbo, I apologize for not leaving suitable comments or notification prior to removing the defunct institutions from the list. I in no way meant to cause an edit war. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005, and have not yet found myself in such a war, and would prefer to keep it that way. I sincerely apologize. With that said, the defunct institutions have been deleted as this is a listing of current post-secondary institutions in Delaware. -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, more accurately you've begun an edit war to delete that section without trying to even discuss the issue with other editors. Not cool. And you didn't even bother to drop a note about this nomination in the article Talk page where other editors might be able to see why you're making these changes. WTF? ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, I've added to the defunct institutions table. I've modified the titles, and added a notes column with context. -Please let me know if you require any additional edits in order to garner your support. Thanks again! --Caponer (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, please note here whether these edits to the list have fully addressed your comments. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the defunct institutions as it detracts from the list topic. -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (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) 20:22, 28 January 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 20:26, 28 January 2015 [7].
List of accolades received by Star Trek Into Darkness
I'm nominating this as a follow up to the nomination of List of accolades received by Star Trek (film) for FL, which as I type is second from bottom of the list with no outstanding work to be conducted. I've sought to incorporate the feedback received from that earlier nomination into this version, so hopefully colleagues should find it easier going!! Needless to say, Into Darkness was not as successful with the nominations as the earlier film, but I believe that I have everything covered. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
Comments from Harrias talk
|
Comments:
- Awards ceremonies (with blue links) should be wikilinked
{{Abbr|Ref(s)|References}}
→{{Abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}
- The date for the BAF Awards is not correct.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The list says that "runner-up mentions are considered wins" and as far as I can see there are two runner-up, which are listed as "Bronze" and "Silver" and I don't think readers will easily understand that they are runner-up, so better explain them.
- Ref. 37 is dead.
- Fix the redirects of ref. no# 31, 32 and 40.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 19:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Miyagawa I think I can give my support once I am clarified with my comments.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 08:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Although I am not a good judge of this, the lead seems to be well-written. I'll go ahead and look at the rest of it.
- I assume that the "recipients and nominees" column is sorted by last name? If so, then I see a couple of problems:
- Benedict Cumberbatch's Britannia award is sorting between "AV Squad" and Maryann Brandon.
- Shouldn't Jay Cooper et al. come before Chris Pine?
- If it is going by last name, shouldn't Zoe Saldana come before Stefan Sonnenfeld and Star Trek Into Darkness?
- Just as a suggestion: considering the problems already with dead links, I would suggest you archive the sources so that problems don't arise in the future.
I am really close to supporting this. Once the reference problems and sortability issues above are dealt with, I think this will be ready. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 20:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All of my concerns have been addressed. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — A good one. Also, if possible, please have a look at this--FrankBoy (Buzz) 18:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments
- based on a production budget of $190 million, - since this is the budget, and
- You tend to make sentences with a lot of clauses, which is somewhat confusing, and which I think would work better with separating the more compound sentences such as the second sentence of the lead, the one with the writing and producing and directing.
- recommend combining intake with intake and standing with standing (most successful worldwide, etc), rather than NA and worldwide
- This was out of 44 nominations, with the visual effects work highlighted by the number of awards ceremonies that they were represented at. - who is "they"? The awards, or the film, or...? Are awards represented at ceremonies?
- the most wins came from the Key Art Awards - recommend saying how many — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 27 January 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) 20:22, 28 January 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 11:57, 19 January 2015 [8].
Morgan Freeman on screen and stage
- Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because he is one of the great actors of our generation and deserves to have a well written career history article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man
Quick comments you've waited nearly a month for some interest....
- " in The Pawnbroker (1964), and A Man Called Adam (1966)." no need for the comma.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why the image captions avoid mentioning the subject matter?
- I was told on another peer review/fl candidates comment that his last name isn't necessary since the article is about his career so it'd be redundant. I can add it back if you'd like. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "he was on the television series" he was "on"? Reads weird to me, why not, "he acted/featured in"?
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of show was The Electric Company? It may help us to understand the "various characters" you go on to discuss.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " earned him second Academy Award nomination for Best Actor, the first for " seems odd to do this in reverse order.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "he was cast in the films" he appeared in more than those you listed, so perhaps it should be "in films, including..."
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to link God.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "he was in the science fiction action films" grim writing, need to fix it up a little.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Pawnbroaker"? typo.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone, Baby, Gone has no commas.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortable tables mean linked items should be linked every time.
- Done LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a predominantly USEng article, why are dates in the references in BritEng?
- Done - changed dates to mm, dd, yyyy format. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: were all the suggestions you gave completed? Or do you have more? LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cowlibob
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
References check of film section
Done LADY LOTUS • TALK
Done LADY LOTUS • TALK I'm going to wait till you sort these out to continue on to the other sections. Cowlibob (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @Lady Lotus: Right, sourcing seems to be pretty much sorted except for the Earth Day Special which you can exclude if you want if you can't find an RS. I've done some reworking of the lead as I find that you share my tendency in making the prose of the lead very listy which doesn't really work in making "an engaging lead". So I've tried to reword it to be more like a story of his career rather than bullet points. It probably still needs a bit more work but hopefully looks better now. Cowlibob (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much. I removed the Earth Day special, maybe a RS will come along one day :) Is there anything else you find that needs to be fixed before you support it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: It's close I'll have a look at what I can do with the lead. Just needs some tweaking, I'll try to have a good look at it tomorrow. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: Ok I think that does it. Happy to support now, good work! Cowlibob (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lady Lotus: It's close I'll have a look at what I can do with the lead. Just needs some tweaking, I'll try to have a good look at it tomorrow. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much. I removed the Earth Day special, maybe a RS will come along one day :) Is there anything else you find that needs to be fixed before you support it? LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you SO much!!! LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dr. Blofeld
Support Looks in good shape. I'm sure you'll complete Cow's points. One thing though you might change the web source authors with surname first like the books for consistency.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dr. Blofeld: Thank you :) I made the book cites [firstname lastname] for consistency just because there were fewer of them as opposed to changing all the web cites. Hope that's ok. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
Resolved comments from Snuggums (talk / edits) |
---|
Looks quite nice :). I don't have many concerns, though Freeman starring in the Broadway adaptation of Driving Miss Daisy should be added. It's also worth mentioning he won a Golden Globe for Best Actor in Driving Miss Daisy and a nomination for Best Supporting Actor in Street Smart since Academy Award nominations and the Academy Award he won are listed. Also, "earned him his third Academy Award nomination, this one for Best Actor" → "earned him his third Academy Award nomination for Best Actor". For the future, yes- references DO need to support names of roles. Can't see any other issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- No worries, thanks so much :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:22, 7 January 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) 12:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: @Cowlibob: @Dr. Blofeld: @SNUGGUMS: Thank you all so much for all your help! It means a lot! LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 04:17, 17 January 2015 [14].
List of Asia Cup five-wicket hauls
Another fifers list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL, and List of ICC Champions Trophy five-wicket hauls, another candidate of mine which has gained substantial support. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (ping) 19:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
I don't think your interpretation is correct. You use a subjective term (notable) that too with in quotes. If it were a fact your opinion would hold some weight. But in this case, it may not necessarily be a fact. Given that we have just one ref. to backup the claim, I feel an in-text attribution should come in place, else it's better that we revert to the original wording. —Vensatry (ping) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—
--Khadar Khani (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – meets the criteria! Waiting for you at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pakistan women Test cricketers/archive1. --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
No need to link the Indian cricket team twice in the lead."The former has takenGiants2008 (Talk) 03:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]tooktwo".
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
Firstly, sorry it's taken me so long to have a look at this. As expected, it is generally very good, just a few minor issues:
Harrias talk 08:49, 13 January 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 17 January 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 14:02, 3 January 2015 [16].
Matthew McConaughey filmography
Here's another filmography article from me. This time for Matthew McConaughey whose career has had a recent resurgence with films such as Killer Joe, Bernie and of course his Academy Award winning role in Dallas Buyers Club. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
====Comments from Seattle====
@Seattle: Thanks for the review. Done all except two things. It is an orphan article but I don't think it will be useful to label it as such because it's always going to remain as such because it is an offshoot of the actor's article. I had thought the point of labelling orphan articles was to encourage people to create more relevant links to it. I'm not sure why the empty rows in notes should be filled with mdashes. Cowlibob (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments from SNUGGUMS
Here's my 2¢.....
- "The following year McConaughey played lawyer"..... add a comma after "year"
- "starring in various films of this genre"..... reads awkwardly, maybe "for his roles in"
- "However in the beginning of the following decade McConaughey took on more serious dramatic roles"..... questionable tone
- "The following year he played the titular role in both Southern Gothic crime film Killer Joe, and coming-of-age drama Mud"..... I'd put the time frame at the end of this sentence
- "For his performance in the former he received the Saturn Award for Best Actor"..... add a comma after "former"
- "McConaughey next role" → "McConaughey's next role" (typo)
- Why is there no description for his roles in the "music videos" section?
- Digital Spy isn't the worst of sources, but I'm confident you can find something better
- Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Flixster
- Reuters is owned by The Woodbridge Company
- YouTube is generally discouraged when reliable secondary sources are available
This is in decent shape, just needs touching up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
A good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
@The Rambling Man: Do you have any other remaining concerns with this FLC TRM? Cowlibob (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I have made some copy-edits in the lead, and have separated the second paragraph into two parts for better readability. Of course, those are cosmetic changes, and you can revert if you like. Good job once again Cowlibob! I must say that I look forward to your filmography lists at the FAC. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The second para of thelead ends with an unsupported line (half is in the article, but you need something to support the bits of the sentence that claim "starred", "supporting role" and "Soderbergh-directed comedy-drama"). All good apart from that. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 3 January 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 11:45, 19 January 2015 [17].
Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Artist of the Year
- Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. This list was created after all the comments and suggestions for the other Featured Lists about the LNA's. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- File:Don Omar at HRL.JPG, File:DaddyYankee.jpg, and File:Pitbull the rapper in performance (2011).jpg need personality rights warnings at the Commons
- I do not know how to do this. Can somebody help me?. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The winners need the Double-Dagger added.
- Added. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Double-dagger itself needs an |alt= parameter for readers with images disabled; see Template:Double-dagger for more information
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Years in the table should not be bolded, nor should the links
- This is fixed by the reviewer. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure all references in Spanish are marked as such (references 12 and 25, for instance, check all)
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Multiple wins and nominations" table could be separated into two tables and worked to sort.
- I did not find any way that it could work with the "sort" so I decided to remove that part. The information is already in the list and the infobox. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- the results being tabulated "being" isn't needed here. Seattle (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: How do you unbold the years on the table? Erick (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magiciandude: I've added "plainrowheaders" to the table, which unbolded the links. Do respond when you've finished my other comments; this article is close to meeting the FL criteria. Seattle (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Magiciandude:@Seattle: I am ready for more comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 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) 12:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 17 January 2015 [18].
List of Space Shuttle missions
- Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (first FLC), Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (removal).
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the removal concerns have been addressed. My role in this article was to collect sources and format the article according to MOS. While there are still minor things to do, I believe it should pass muster now. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
Oppose based on the lead's malnutrition and the list's poor sorting and formatting. Seattle (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am handling these comments. I will notify when I'm done. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 09:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]- @Seattle: I've addressed your comments. If you have any others, I'd be glad to hear them! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Alright, I have a bunch of comments, but they're honestly not that bad- you can probably fix them, so not opposing.
- "They were used" - they is ambiguous, and at this point you haven't said yet that there were multiple space shuttles.
- Fixed.
- "indicating scheduling sequence[9] ." - period before ref
- Fixed.
- "As with the sequential numbers" - you didn't say that sequential-numbered launches were based on scheduling, so this should be "Both systems of codes were assigned..."
- Fixed.
- "With the resumption of flights in 1988" - you haven't yet said that flights were ever stopped
- Fixed.
- I'd like it if you said how many flights were in each numbering sequence, as well as the total number.
- Done.
- Table one- on sortable tables, you have to link every row, not just the "first" instance, since it changes. E.g. Edwards should be linked all five times.
- Done.
- Table one- link Enterprise (each time)
- Done.
- Table two- why is the code number bolded? It wasn't in table one.
- It's bolded in Table 1 now.
- Table two- mission is sorting oddly (STS-1, STS-100, STS-101, etc.) - put sortkeys so that it sorts as if it was STS-001, STS-002, etc.
- Fixed.
- Table two- again, link all shuttles and landing sites
- Done.
- "First flight of two women in space Ride and Sullivan; First spacewalk by US woman, Kathryn Sullivan; First Canadian in space Marc Garneau" - you need a comma between space and Ride, and space and Marc; you call her Sullivan and then give her full linked name second, you don't give Ride's full, linked name at all.
- Fixed
- You're really inconsistent in how you list multiple items. Sometimes you put a period, sometimes a comma, sometimes a semicolon. I'd almost rather see a bulleted list instead for each row, but for space reasons just stick with semicolons between each item
- I decided to convert to bullets for the same reason you gave. Unfortunetly, this does increase the overall article size, however; it is more readable and easier to edit.
- "Planned tracking and data relay satellite deployment, Loss of vehicle and crew, Teacher in Space Flight" - no context and random caps in "Teacher in Space Flight", "Loss" capitalized for no reason
- Fixed.
- "first post Challenger flight" - "post-Challenger"
- Fixed.
- Link Spacelab whenever you use it in notes
- Fixed.
- On some notes you end with a period; these are not complete sentences, so don't
- Fixed.
- Inconsistent on italicizing Mir in notes
- Fixed. Also linked all of them.
- Link ISS each time you use it outside of "ISS assembly"
- Fixed
- "Japanese Experiment Modoule" - typo (twice) and don't link it since it's the Kibo, which you already link
- Fixed.
- "After STS-121, the rescue flight for STS-115, if needed, would have been STS-301" - confusing, and wasn't 121 after 115?
- Fixed.
- No ref given for first contingency missions paragraph
- Fixed.
- Flight stats table- spell out the whole month, not "Apr"
- Fixed.
- You pull out Chen into the bibliography, but not Goodwin? Or the other books?
- That's what I get for editing at 3am. Fixed.
- cites to Chen should be "Chen, p. 5", not "Chen 5"
- Fixed.
- Works like TIME magazine, Florida Today should be italicized ("work="), linked, and formatted properly (Time, not TIME Magazine)
- I didn't know that was a thing. I fixed it.
- Be consistent if the publisher is National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA (and link it, either the first time or every time)
- Fixed.
- You're formatting dates day-month-year in references, but month-day-year in bibliography (and everywhere else)
- They're all day-month-year now. I did it using a regular expression match script, which may have missed one.
If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC down below this one. --PresN 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
: Note: I am handling these comments. Apologies, I got surprised by an end-of-semester project that is limiting my Wikipedia time. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: @Seattle: I have finished handling these comments. I apologize again for the delay, and thank you for your patience (It enabled me to get the A I desperately needed in the class). Seattle, I'm pinging you as well per your talk page. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The list seems to be good for FLC. Under the crew column though, what does 7/7, 7/8, 6/7, 6/6 mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
- Number of crew launched/landed with. I've added a note. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. The only thing I feel is missing is some more meat to the intro. For example you could have another paragraph discussing the highlights of the 135 missions: longest (with number), mission objectives such as how many went to ISS (how many assembly, how many supply) or Mir (I remember only a few of the SSs could dock ISS), highest (I think the two Hubble ones), the two crashes (with numbers), how many deployed satellites, how many landed at Edwards vs Kennedy (was there a rationale for the landing site?), how many astronauts were on all 135 missions, how many missions had EVA. Also, "Spacehab" and "SPACEHAB"? Some of the notes entires are a bit weird "LAGEOS II" => add "deployment"? Consider looking at each note entry and make sure it makes sense to a non-astronomy expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: I went ahead and added the middle paragraph, which includes a ton of statistics. I also tried to clarify a few notes. Hope that works! ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks better, but can still be improved.
- Better. The only thing I feel is missing is some more meat to the intro. For example you could have another paragraph discussing the highlights of the 135 missions: longest (with number), mission objectives such as how many went to ISS (how many assembly, how many supply) or Mir (I remember only a few of the SSs could dock ISS), highest (I think the two Hubble ones), the two crashes (with numbers), how many deployed satellites, how many landed at Edwards vs Kennedy (was there a rationale for the landing site?), how many astronauts were on all 135 missions, how many missions had EVA. Also, "Spacehab" and "SPACEHAB"? Some of the notes entires are a bit weird "LAGEOS II" => add "deployment"? Consider looking at each note entry and make sure it makes sense to a non-astronomy expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Try to answer the question: what was the purpose of all these missions? The second para answers it a bit, but I feel it still doesn't summarize the notes section sufficiently. For example, until #97 almost all missions were some deployment of some sort, while after that it was almost only ISS.
- Also, some of the notes aren't very clear: #86 was a deployment? similarly the following notes need some TLC: #10, 17, 22, 32, 49, 56, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 77, 80, 83, 86, 88, 92, 97, 113, 127.
- "DoD" and EVA is not explained at first use.
- It will look better if you use * even for the single-entry notes
Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 17 January 2015 [19].
List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey
- Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this list for a while and think it meets the criteria. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Watch all-caps in reference 21
- Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't you merge this list into one table with two additional columns for "Sponsor" and "Award"?
- I think it's neater this way since it's clear she's not going to be nominated only once (in comparison to films or albums), and this way, it is easier to navigate and see, which organisation nominated/awarded her at what time for which work. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better for sortability to merge this into one list. All of the headers make this list unnecessarily disjointed, and you can't predict the future. Seattle (talk) 15:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Re:CRYSTALBALL - She's already received nominations in different years by the Billboard Music Awards, BRIT Awards and ECHO Awards, for example, so I'm not trying to predict the future. Also, almost every featured list of awards won by an artist is formatted this way. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 35 is out, I don't know if it's dead. Can you replace? Seattle (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. Thank you for your comments, @Seattle:! Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No need to link common terms like "nightclub".
- Unlinked. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Del Rey began writing" no need for the quick repeat, just "She began..." is fine.#
- Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "her to get out of her contract" clusmy phrasing, can we improve?
- I changed it to "break off her contract". Is that better? Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to link common geographical locations like London or England.
- Unlinked. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "was the fifth best-selling album of that year" in what context?
- What do you mean? It sold the fifth-most copies in 2012. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean "in the world"? "in a particular genre"? Be clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've added "in the world". Littlecarmen (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of July 2014..." it's December 2014, any update?
- No, but I have corrected the number with a better source. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Born to Die: The Paradise Edition" uses a colon not a spaced endash.
- Yeah, it was recently changed. Fixed. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No references for the end of the third para of the lead.
- That's because it's all sourced in the body of the article. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Best Original Song - Motion Picture" needs an en-dash.
- Didn't it already have one? Oh well, I re-did it. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are awards given to Lana Del Rey herself shown as N/A?
- That's just the way I've seen it most of the time, but I've fixed it now. Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The XBOX Entertainment Awards are held by XBOX and voted for by XBOX players" XBOX used three times in a single sentence is a little dull.
- I've changed it to "The XBOX Entertainment Awards are held by XBOX and voted for by the console's players." Is that better? Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Check refs, 42 for instance shows the BBC as being a work not a publisher.
- I've changed all of the "work="s to "website="s. That's correct, isn't it. Thanks for the comments! Littlecarmen (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I agree. The BBC is a publisher of information. You could argue that BBC News or similar are "works" or "websites". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, I've changed Ref 1's website to BBC News and made BBC the publisher, and for Ref 42, I made Newsbeat the website and BBC the publisher. Littlecarmen (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 17 January 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 19:12, 14 December 2014 [20].
List of Scheduled Monuments in Taunton Deane
Following the recent promotion of List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset I'm nominating the smaller but similar list of similar sites in the Taunton Deane district of Somerset. The formatting of the list is the same; however there are only 33 entries in this one.— Rod talk 08:32, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks excellent. One thing though. I just started Balt Moor Wall and the source does say that the wall was first mentioned in Stephen's charter between 1135 and 1154 so technically, although likely, there doesn't appear to be proof in the English heritage source it did actually date to before 1135 and could have been built in say 1140 and first mentioned in 1150. Do you have another source which says it was definitely built before 1135?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment and starting the article. Another source says possibly 9th century - added.— Rod talk 11:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Taunton Deane was granted borough status in 1975, perpetuating the mayoralty of Taunton." I do not understand this.
- "supporting this" Perhaps "governing this system"?
- You need to check duplinks.
- "It was presented, in 1946, by Major Alexander Gould Barrett, to the National Trust and serve as a memorial" Should be "and serves" or "to serve"?
- "The defensive walls and part of Taunton Castle". The defensive walls and other parts of Taunton Castle?
- The scheduled bit is the walls and part of the castle. A lot of it has been rebuilt so not included in the schuduling.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK if you do not regard the walls as part of the castle.
- Map does not show site names - you seem to have forgotten name=.
- Balt Moor Wall. Length not given - EH says 550m survives.
- Buckland priory fishponds. "The ponds were probably dug in the 13th century and were filled in by 1725." Yet the picture shows a pond still surviving.
- This source says filled in by 1725 with a picture of the larger area, but I think (maybe) a small area shown in the picture still has water.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Two bowl barrows in a line" - a line of two points?
- Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments (and edits - I reverted one re churchyard and village crosses, could you check). I will look at the map labels.— Rod talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I misread churchyard and village crosses as two different things. Why do you need "and village" when they are all in churchyards?
- Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The lead summarises the contents well and describes Taunton Deane and Scheduled monuments in a way which is easy to understand. As far as I can tell, it is complete and thorough, as well as being well-cited throughout. Well done! --Noswall59 (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2014 (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) 19:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Older nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat 07:47, 13 January 2015 [21].
List of Seattle bridges
I am nominating this for featured list because it gives details on the most notable bridges in Seattle. Sortable table with images and specs. Cptnono (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great list! I have a few comments:
- Can you wiki-link the first instance of each bridge type? Bascule, Cantilever, etc.
- What makes a bridge notable? What criteria was used to determine notability? I think this needs to be made clear so we can determine inclusiveness (FL criteria 3a).
- I tried to go over that in the first sentence but need to copy edit it. I went to every bridge article and verified GNG then created a couple more after finding sources. I really wanted to add an all but defunct rail bridge but the only source only found a single source. If I couldn't find sources on Google Books, News Archive, or other locations I did not add it.
- The googlemaps coordinates is excellent, however I got a warning "A Google Maps feature used on this page is changing soon. Custom map content will need to be migrated." Can this be fixed?
- Wikilink first instance of Seattle.
- Lead may need copyedit, ex: "The following list in of noteworthy" does not make sense. "Another body of water, Lake Union, is just north of the downtown area" is passive. To make it active consider something like "Lake Union is another body of water just north of the downtown area".
- "In the 1970s, residents grew wary of congestion that made the previous connection the second busiest road in the state." needs a source
- Hmmm... removed for now. I'll try to pull it up but removing the line made the next concern more readable.
- " The bridge was left inoperable after" What bridge?
- Shorten and merge these two sentences: "The area is also serviced by the Spokane Street Bridge. Built in 1991, it is the world's first and only hydraulically operated concrete double-leaf swing bridge"
- Sources needed for the span of a few of the bridges.
This is just a quick glance, once the changes are made I may be able to go over it in finer detail. Mattximus (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. A few minor quibbles.
- The "circa" Arboretum Sewer Trestle bridge is interfering with the ability to sort. I think there is a way around this but I don't know it off hand. Everything else in the list looks good.
- I think the lead still needs a good edit. I think the sentence "The following list is of noteworthy spans throughout the city" can go, being almost tautological.
- The first paragraph needs to link to the idea of bridges, rather then just a description of waterways. The description is a bit confusing, as it's not made clear that Elliott Bay is a part of Puget Sound. If there is no bridge across lake union, is it worth mentioning in the lead? Perhaps I can take a stab at it:
- Downtown Seattle is on an isthmus between Lake Washington and Puget Sound which are connected through canals and locks that make up the Lake Washington Ship Canal. Vehicles, trains, and pedestrians cross these bodies of water over X bridges. The largest bridge is… the oldest bridge… (these latter two are trivial and only a suggestion.
- You mention that Magnolia Bridge is already deteriorated but the source you reference has no mention of this bridge.
- "A primary span" was left inoperable after being hit by a freighter in 1978, did this span (I think you mean bridge?) have a name?
That concludes my review, I'm happy to support if the above comments are addressed, good work! Mattximus (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mattximus: Thanks! I tried to hit some of your points. What do you think?Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- You call it the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge in the lead, but that's not its name (and the link is redirecting). The same redirect is happening in the table
- Why is Cowen Park Bridge the only one with a source for what road it's a part of? It's not that I think you need sources for that, it's just odd that one of them has a source
- Cowen Park Bridge needs a source for opening date, as do several others
- Fremont Bridge needs a source for length, as do several others
- Jose P. Rizal Bridge is redirecting in the name link, and you should link I90 in that row
- "Riged frame"
- Link Swing bridge in Spokane Street Bridge, also in the lead
- Two of your "see also" links are redirecting
- I kinda wish we had a flat-color city map in the article with the bridges highlighted, but that's a bit much to ask for
The missing references are the big one here, but should be doable. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC, located just below this one. It's short! --PresN 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I need to do some reviews since it has been a bit. I need to try to tackle this sourcing issue. I think one issue (besides not having a confirmed length for Fremont it looks like) is that the sources are placed sporadically. Instead of repeating the sources in each cell I can do a column with references.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: My eyes hurt from going through so many pdfs! All lengths and years sourced (with some corrected). Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me! Switching to Support. Did one minor reference tweak edit. A thought occurred to me that bold and italics might not meet access requirements for calling out something, as opposed to putting a dagger or * after the word, so I've asked on WT:ACCESS about it to find out. Not going to wait for the answer to support, though. --PresN 03:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @PresN: My eyes hurt from going through so many pdfs! All lengths and years sourced (with some corrected). Cptnono (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
- the city's unique topography. - Who says the topography is "unique"? Feels WP:WEASELy to me.
- Seattle also has some of the only permanent floating pontoon bridges in the world. - citation needed
- The Fremont Bridge crosses the center of the canal and is one of the most raised bridges in the world due to its clearance over the water of only 30 feet (9.1 m). - forgive me, but how does having a low clearance make a bridge "one of the most raised" in the world
- Titles of books etc. should be capitalized
- 1991-built Spokane Street Bridge - Is 1991-built a standard term? Feels like this should be reworked; it's quite rough
- Perhaps someone else knows the exact guideline, but to the best of my understanding a header is necessary between the lead and the list proper to allow easier access for screenreaders and the like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing anything mandating a section for the list at WP:LEADFORALIST. I would like to make it easy on screen readers, though, if you have any suggestions on the headings title.Cptnono (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't seem to find the link either. Perhaps The Rambling Man is more familiar with this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:DTT is usually the place to find these sorts of nuances. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Shucks, it's not there either. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: Thanks for the review. I believe everything is now addressed except for the screen reader suggestion at the end. Thanks for noticing that CAPS in refs and a couple other things that look like no brainers after looking at it a little closer.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose; good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Only really small stuff. Bit confused why the list is part of the Lead. Notes b and f should end with a full stop. Ref 26 has no retrieval date. YellowStahh (talk) 21:00, 11 January 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) 07:43, 13 January 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 07:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) [28].[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Lorde
Personally I think that this list is appropriate for a Featured List. I will appreciate any comments that help improve this list. Cheers, Simon (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments from WikiRedactor
- Six external links that should be corrected.
- The first and second sentences can be merged to say "New Zealand recording artist Lorde is well known..."
- In the introduction, can you change "as of now" to a specific month for clarification?
The list looks to be in good shape, I don't really have anything else to add right now! Once these corrections are made I'll take another look-through because I am a little tight on time lately, so I'll set aside some more time to thoroughly look through it. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @WikiRedactor: I have addressed all of your concerns above. Much thanks, Simon (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS |
---|
Comments
Overall, very impressive work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Lorde is a New Zealand singer known for her contrary view of pop culture with that of her contemporaries. - That is possibly the poorest definition / first sentence I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. "Contrary view of pop culture"? It's been "in" to be "contrary" for ages. Can we define her a bit better than this, please?
- At the age of 13, she signed a deal with Universal Music Group (UMG) and started to write music. - So what did she do before she signed? Just sang?
- The album has sold 2.7 million copies worldwide, - as of when?
- and was preceded by four singles: "Tennis Court", "Team", "No Better" and "Glory and Gore". In 2014, Lorde contributed four songs to the soundtrack for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, including the single "Yellow Flicker Beat". - ref?
- Additionally, she earned a pending Golden Globe nomination for Best Original Song for "Yellow Flicker Beat". - "pending" reads strange here. Also, when is the ceremony?
- None of the descriptions of the awards are referenced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I think the descriptions of the awards don't need references because it is already sourced in the award articles. (i.e. Madonna). Simon (talk) 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have insisted on references there, too. That something is referenced elsewhere is not sufficient reason to not reference something in the nominated article, particularly at the featured level. This is the only point holding me back from supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 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) 07:44, 13 January 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 14:01, 3 January 2015 [29].
Hugo Award for Best Fancast
Back again with another scifi/fantasy award list, this time a blast from the past! Back in 2010/2011, I got all 15 Hugo Award lists featured and stuck in a featured topic. Beginning in 2012, though, the Hugo Awards added another category- that of Best Fancast, for podcasts ("non-professional audio or video periodicals") as a separate thing from fanzines. Other than a peer review to get it in the FT, the list has just been waiting since to get enough items to be nominated- and here it is! It's a lot shorter than the other Hugo lists, but Hugo Award for Best Graphic Story got featured when it only had three years of nominations as well and looked pretty similar to this, so it should be fine. The list should be up to the standard of its 15 sibling lists- thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and source review (ProtoDrake)
I've looked through the prose and structure, and after consideration, I Support this article's inclusion as an FL. As to the sources, there seems nothing wrong here, so that's a Pass. One minor note: I might try archiving the few unarchived references, unless they won't archive properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talk • contribs) 7:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Review by Tezero
In the middle of some writing now, but I'll try to begin reviewing by the end of the day. At first glance, the intro looks exceptionally lengthy for such a short list - is there any reason it's gotten this way? Tezero (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is similar between this and the other 15 lists, like Hugo Award for Best Novel- I don't shorten it for shorter lists. --PresN 00:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The "World Science Fiction Society" is linked on the main Hugo Award page - why not here?
- There isn't an article for WSFS- the link at Hugo Award is to Worldcon, which is linked here when I mention the Worldcon convention itself.
- "generally available" - ambiguous; does this mean available to a variety of regions (if so, which ones?), to the general public (if so, as opposed to what?), usually available (based on time?), ...?
- Are we supposed to know going in what a "fancast" is? It's not linked, and this list doesn't explicitly define it. What does "non-professional" mean?
- "The Hugo Award for Best Fancast was first proposed as a category after the 2011 awards. It then appeared as a temporary category at the 2012 awards. Temporary awards are not required to be repeated in following years." - kind of choppy; I suggest merging the second sentence into the first or third, or even all three together somehow
- Too much detail about SF Squeezecast (do we need all of its authors? Heck, any?) in the intro
- Is SF Squeezecast one of the nine, or does it count twice?
- Why is SF Squeezecast marked with an asterisk in the table? Alternately, why isn't SF Signal Podcast? The legend includes an asterisk in the mark for "Winners".
- Can an award really be "currently held by" anyone? SF Signal Podcast was just the most recent winner.
- Additionally, why is it a person rather than his work who's listed as having won the most recent award?
- Might be worth mentioning on what date the award is typically assigned. The 2014 one could've come hastily right at the beginning of the year, or just a few weeks ago. What date it was would signal how deliberate and in-depth the selection process was.
Tezero (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, then. Support. Tezero (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments (Cptnono)
This is an informative list with tons of good stuff and style. I second the idea that the lead seems long for the length of the list. Hopefully that will be fixed with time and more awards.
- WP:FLCR 5b mentions media. Is there anything that could be added to this list? A picture of the award or a winner. Audio from a winner?
- Is the list of references bulky enough to require 3 columns? This could be automatic and appropriate with 30em called for in the template.
- I'm not sure if portmanteau needs to be wikilinked. Maybe a few word explanation would be better. WP:OVERLINK doesn't say "yes" or "no" on this so not a major issue.
Cptnono (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and source review (Caponer)
- Comments. I find that this list meets the majority of criteria for inclusion as a Featured List. The informational template is concise, and the introductory paragraphs are also informative with internally-cited references that check out. An internal citation should be added to the last sentence in the lede: "SF Signal Podcast, run by Patrick Hester, won the 2014 award." The final sentence in the second paragraph of the lede could also use an internal citation. Great job on this nominated list! -- Caponer (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review from Matthewrbowker
- Support Concise, informative list. I am a little concerned about MOS:ACCESS-related stuff with the table, but I don't have the proper equipment to test it. Maybe add some row and column heading code? Also, the leade is a little long but that's not a concern because of the fact that the list will "grow into" the size of the leade. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 22:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 3 January 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 13:51, 3 January 2015 [30].
List of German field marshals
- Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was a huge, unreferenced mess when I first saw it. After working on the article for about a month in my sandbox it's become (in my opinion) worthy of FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MisterBee1966
Pretty good progress. Please find a few recommendations below. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest to make use of the template {{sortname}} for better name sorting and {{dts}} for correct date sorting. Using dts template you can merge the "Year of promotion" and "Date of promotion" columns.
- This is a good suggestion, but I don't know how to use all those templates. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the changes to the section "Nazi Germany (1933–45)". Note that you must adhere to MOS:DATERANGE
- This is a good suggestion, but I don't know how to use all those templates. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If available, I would add a picture column. I believe a number of pictures are safe to use on lists. Alt text may be required
- After looking at List of British field marshals I agree on what you say about a picture column. Will check into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's done. Y Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to add alt text to the images
- It's done. Y Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at List of British field marshals I agree on what you say about a picture column. Will check into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead needs some expansion. You need to provide some motivation for the four sections and maybe add some statistics, like X were promoted during the War of XYZ ....
- I don't feel the lead needs that much improvements. I like the idea of "X were promoted during the of X", but further expansion are (in my opinion) unnecessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's done. Y Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel the lead needs that much improvements. I like the idea of "X were promoted during the of X", but further expansion are (in my opinion) unnecessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name" triggers the question what was the name
- Yes it does, but this is an article about who held the rank of field marshal, not the old one, so didn't put too much emphasize on this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Field marshal (German: Generalfeldmarschall) was the highest military rank in Germany for 75 years" what about Göring? Wasn't he an exception to this rule, he became a Reichsmarschall. Maybe worth commenting on
- True, but Reichsmarschall was only created for Göring so people knew who would be Hitler's successor in event of an early or unexpected death, thus the current wording ... But, to avoid confusion I will add a note.
- It's added. Y Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but Reichsmarschall was only created for Göring so people knew who would be Hitler's successor in event of an early or unexpected death, thus the current wording ... But, to avoid confusion I will add a note.
- "As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters, were tax-exempt, member of the nobility, equal with government officials, under constant protection or escort, and had the right to directly report to the royal family." How was this handled in the Third Reich?
- The wording fits on how field marshals were treated during the Third Reich - except the part about royal family for obvious reasons. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest to red link the three marshals for which Wiki doesn't yet have an article
- God, I hate red links. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check disambiguation on Emperor Frederick III, Ernst Busch and Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia
- Well spotted, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All are now fixed. Y Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli" his article states that his promotion was on 30 October 1940. The list states 31 October 1942, which would make it a posthumous promotion. What is correct?
- I suggest to put the citation after the date and get rid of the reference column
- Since the lists are sortable you need to make a comment on how they are sorted initially.
- Since you included the field marshals of the Luftwaffe, would it make sense to list the Grand Admirals of the Navy?
Comments by Yakikaki
- Initial comment Very nice clean-up and extension! This list have all the possibilities of becoming a truly great list, IMO. A few questions though: The timeline seems a bit confused. First it states that it was the highest rank "for 75 years". Then it says it has existed since 1631. Then it says it was recreated in 1870, and then abolished in 1945. In the list itself, there is also a gap between 1919 and 1933. So, I assume it wasn't used in the Weimar Republic? Maybe this gap should be explained. The other gap is between a for me unknown time and 1870. Perhaps this could be elaborated? When and why was the rank abandoned? The "for 75 years" could then perhaps be supplemented with the addition "from Germany's unification until the end of WWII" or something like this. And if the kingdoms of Saxony and Prussia were the only pre-unification kingdoms that used the rank, perhaps this should be clarified (the messy history of Germany before unification is a bit infuriating when it comes to these questions, I know - what constituted "Germany" before 1870?). OK, there's some food for thought for now. I'll get back with additional comments. And again, very nice list! Please don't be deterred by these comments, I'm happy to supply what held I can if you need :) Best, Yakikaki (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yakikaki, you have also made some useful comments. Regarding the timeline confusion, the article states the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name, recreated in 1870, and then finally abolished in 1945 - I don't quite see the confusion of this? However, your suggestion about making a text-section for the Weimar Republic, I have implemented, very good suggestion. I have also expanded the lead. Check out the article now and tell me what you think. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, the Weimar addition is clarifying. About the timeline: if the rank was created in 1631 (by whom, one asks, considering there was no unified Germany at the time) and then recreated in 1870, this implies it was abolished sometime between 1631 and 1870. This should then be clarified. One cannot create something in 1631, go on with business as usual and then recreate something which already exists in 1870. Furthermore, I assume the "75 years" are about 1870 to 1945, but there is a gap there during the Weimar era, so the 75 years aren't really correct either (or possibly they are, in theory - was the rank disbanded or just not used?). But the reader gets the information that it was created in 1631, recreated in 1870, abolished in 1945 and for 75 years was the highest rank. The reader does not know why or when it was abolished in order to be recreated in 1870. The reader also doesn't know which 75 years it was the highest rank (between 1631 and 1945 its not 75 but 314 years; but perhaps it wasn't the highest rank from 1631 onwards?). Herein lies the confusion. Another question: was it the highest military rank only in Saxony and Prussia? Not in Bavaria, Württemberg or any other German principality? Yakikaki (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yakikaki, you have also made some useful comments. Regarding the timeline confusion, the article states the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name, recreated in 1870, and then finally abolished in 1945 - I don't quite see the confusion of this? However, your suggestion about making a text-section for the Weimar Republic, I have implemented, very good suggestion. I have also expanded the lead. Check out the article now and tell me what you think. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nergaal
At a quick glance:
- the 5 separate tables should be merged and you should add the date the person died (presumably when they finished being ranked as FM)
- There isn't enough room. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "had existed since 1631 under a different name" => what name?
- Will look into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- how was Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg given the rank?
- Why is this important? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- was abolished in 1945 => what remained as the highest rank after?
- Will add some words. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- note a shoudl be partially included in the text
- I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "equal with government officials" +. vague
- I don't think its vague at all. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "constant protection or escort" => by whom? the military?
- Obviously! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- quite a few were kings/rulers of countires. mention this in intro
- I don't think that's nessecary. The lead mentioned it was recreated for two princes and the titles are stated in the tables. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- notable FM? like Goring and Rommel?
- Both Göring and Rommel are mentioned in the Nazi Germany table.
- in general the intro feels too short
- I don't think so. If you look above you can see someone has suggested the same which I have replied to and acted upon. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose after a month my comments have not been addressed. The list is probably complete, but it is really uninviting. The table can be improved, and the intro made more interesting. Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Noswall59
Comment Hi, the lists themselves are well-ordered and clear. I do echo the previous suggestion about a death column - it looks like it would fit to me, especially if you combined the date and year of promotion columns... However, I do have a couple of queries. Firstly, why is the first table under the section header "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)", when only one of those people included in the table was appointed after 1806? Secondly, perhaps it might also be worth moving the pre-unification tables for Prussia and Saxony (they weren't Germany, and it makes the whole list more complex and fragmented)... I wonder what other reviewers think of this? Regardless, if we are including pre-unification states like Prussia and Saxony (either the Kingdom or Electorate) then presumably we ought to have some reference to other electorates/kingdoms like Bavaria, Hanover, Wurttemburg and the Rhine Palatinate. Even if there were not Field Marshals appointed from these areas, then perhaps, for the sake of completeness, this should be stated; and, if there were, then they ought to be included here too (or in (a) separate pre-unification list(s)). Lastly, I wonder how we know whether this list is complete... has anyone reliably published a list of Prussian or Saxon Field Marshals which we can check? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Noswall59, thank you for you comments. Regarding the "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)" confusion, the "(1806–1918)" addition is simply meant to tell the reader how long the Kingdom of Saxony lasted, not when the first field marshal of that Kingdom was promoted. Since you, and the others, has asked for it, I have included a death column. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther:. Thanks for replying and for adding the death column. Firstly, I am aware of what you intended by the "(1806-1918)" section but my point was that all but one of these Field Marshals were not actually from the Kingdom of Saxony; they were appointed/promoted by the Elector of Saxony, and the electorate was a different political entity (at least in theory), hence it has its own article (Electorate of Saxony) which is distinct from the article on the Kingdom of Saxony. Secondly, you have not acknowledged my other points, which I fear may be a tad more significant than this issue. I do appreciate that you may not be able to respond quickly and that they are big queries, but I am interested to discuss those matters constructively. It will be interesting to see if others will have a say on the matter too. Once again, many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- And, of course, the same applies to the Kingdom of Prussia - it was actually Brandenburg-Prussia (Brandenburg being an Electorate and Prussia a Duchy) until 1701. --Noswall59 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Noswall59, I'm not an expert on German states and especially not on old German states, so if you can I would appreciate if you correct them (Kingdom of Saxony => Electorate of Saxony etc.). Regarding your other points, I will not be making the lead longer as I believe the current length is fine. You also said you feared some of your other points might be more important and that I have not addressed them. If you still stand by these points, I suggest you explain them to me in laymen's terms one by one. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther:Okay, I've corrected the names. The other points are those made in my initial comment; I will itemise them below in detail:
- That the article does not look at the Field Marshals appointed/promoted in other pre-unification German states, e.g. Wurttemburg, Bavaria, Hanover. Therefore, it cannot be said to be complete. If, as may be the case, there were no appointments from any other German states, then I think this should be mentioned and reliably cited in the article, to clarify to the reader that this is the case. It appears that Yakikaki later said the same thing in his comments above.
- That there doesn't appear to be a way of me verifying the completeness of the article based on its sources. You have done a very good job at making sure that each person in the table is cited, but I don't see (correct me if I'm wrong) a reliable list of German field marshals referenced. This would be a helpful way for us reviewers to make sure that your list is as complete as it can be. You are, after all, covering a lengthy time period. This is not necessary per see, but would be very helpful.
- That the lead and other prose is too short and does not summarise the list particularly well or in a way which seems to me to meet the standards of a professional encylopaedia. There is no summary of the appointments, their backgrounds, notable members, their reason for appointment, etc., nor (in much detail) of the rank itself, its history or its function. I can see several royals whose appointments were clearly not based on merit (Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, for instance); that is fine, but this could be explained to the casual reader. I am aware that the rank already has its own article, but you should still summarise its history and development. The point of the lead is that it should be able to summarise the topic independent of anything else, so as to provide a concise but useful overview of the article. I believe this lead does not do this enough. See the article Field marshal (United Kingdom), which is a Featured List.
- Given the reasons mentioned immediately above, it seems sensible to suggest that this article be merged with the Field marshal (Germany) in line with the precedent the British article has set.
- That, while this article's content is within the scope of its subject, I wonder if it would be better to have a separate article for pre-unification Field Marshals because the political make-up of Germany was so different. Having separate lists for each state also makes it seem more fragmented. This is not a problem with your content, but a general comment which may be a point of further discussion. If we look at the British article I have just cited, it remains within the scope of Kingdom of Great Britain, which was formed in 1707; in this article being nominated, we are talking about a national identity, rather than a political entity. I will leave this one to see what others say, and I won't make it a condition for my review, but I hope it will raise some questions.
- Edit: The matter is further confused by this article: List of field marshals of the Holy Roman Empire, which seems to overlap with our one. --Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: Please understand that I appreciate the work you have put into this article and that it has been improved significantly by your efforts; but at present, it seems to fall short of the standards required here. Now, I would like to see this article reach FL standard, and I can see that you already have experience in writing articles of that standard, so I am sure you are capable here too. I do not want to discourage you, and I hope that this article can reach this standard. My advice would be to please take a look at the British article and see if you can't try a similar format here, because the British article does meet the standard and, while the content itself will obviously be different, it's format and length is of the encyclopaedic standard, both in terms of completeness and prose, not to mention the other areas required of a FL. King regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther:Okay, I've corrected the names. The other points are those made in my initial comment; I will itemise them below in detail:
- Noswall59, I'm not an expert on German states and especially not on old German states, so if you can I would appreciate if you correct them (Kingdom of Saxony => Electorate of Saxony etc.). Regarding your other points, I will not be making the lead longer as I believe the current length is fine. You also said you feared some of your other points might be more important and that I have not addressed them. If you still stand by these points, I suggest you explain them to me in laymen's terms one by one. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Parsecboy
- Just a quick comment - in the Weimar section, it states that the German Navy was abolished, which is clearly not correct. Parsecboy (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True, my mistake. I confused the destruction of the U-boats with total abolishment. Will fix. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comments by Auntieruth55
Nice job cleaning up a mess!
- As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters,[3] were tax-exempt, member of the nobility... How about "Field Marshals played a compelling and influential role...etc. Also, why are each of these qualities footnoted, rather than simply a foot note at the end of the sentence?
- I'm very confused about the selection process for this. There were a lot of Napoleonic era field marshals that you have not included.
- Perhaps it would be more useful to make a list of Field Marshals of the 20th century, or of the Second German Empire....?
- There needs to be a section on the role of the field marshal, beyond a single para in the lead about it. I'd expand that paragraph into a section that gives examples of the function of a field marshal in different situations. (military matters, tax exemption, members of nobility, etc.) auntieruth (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I noted in comments above that there is confusion about the titles of states (such as Kingdom of Saxony v Electorate of Saxony). If the link goes to the right historical entity, professionally I would not be concerned about whether I called it a kingdom or an electorate. Saxony was both a kingdom and its king was an elector, thus making his kingdom an electorate. The position of electorate gave him rights with selecting the new emperor. But his status as king was higher on an average day. So, I've always tried to refer to electors as such when they are in their roles as electors, and kings when they are in their roles as kings. I got into major discussions with people in the article War of the Bavarian Succession over whether or not Bavaria should be called a Duchy, an Electorate, or a Kingdom. auntieruth (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, Saxony was not actually a kingdom prior to 1806 and, when it became a Kingdom, its kings ceased to be electors (at least, according to the article) and its Electors were not kings until that year; see the List of rulers of Saxony and also the articles on the Kingdom and Electorate of Saxony. To be fair, though, just calling it "Saxony" in the header would probably suffice. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- As for the big question about "what is Germany": many have asked this, and not answered it. I'd suggest you avoid that question (it's unanswerable) and start with 1871. Even then, it's a bit dicey because the various states had their own armies, but I think it's more doable under those conditions. auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree on this issue with auntieruth. Skip the ones from before 1870 and concentrate on making the list really good from then onwards. Earlier field marshals should be listed for their respective entity, e.g. "List of Prussian field marshals", IMO. Yakikaki (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from my comments above, I also agree with this view, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- For the record, nothing in 2014 describes Germany better than Die Nationalelf. In that respect we need to add Jogi Loew to the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you all are saying, but don't agree on much of it. And also, just because a list is incomplete, that does not mean it cant be a featured article - look at Bernard Lee on stage and screen. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the reader (at least I had) would assume the list to be complete. If it is not complete, the reader needs to be made aware of this fact. Having read the other comments here, I have to agree that the suggestion to limit the time frame from 1871 onwards makes a lot of sense. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi again, I have found a book: Preußisch-deutsche Feldmarschälle und Großadmirale by Jürgen Hahn-Butry (written some time during the Nazi period I think). It is catalogued at OCLC World Cat ([31]) but I doubt you will find a copy - it seems to be very rare. This does seem to be the only book on this topic, which I find surprising. Nonetheless, it might be worth looking at the German language article ([32]), if you've not done so already. It may be possible to add more to the English list by using that as an example. For instance, the German list includes Friedrich Ludwig von Dohna-Carwinden, who was apparently appointed FM in 1747; he is not cited there, but his article on the German wiki ([33]) includes a citation which is a reference for his promotion: [34] (pages 22-23). That book cited might be a useful publication for others too - it appears to be war history book published in the 19th century (see [35] at the de wiki). Furthermore, I don't know whether there were ever lists of officers published by the German Army - in the UK there is the Army List, published annually. That might be useful if such a thing exists. Also, does Germany have an equivalent to the London Gazette? If so, that might be useful for finding notices of appointments as well. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- MisterBee1966, one can, just like the article about Bernard Lee does, add a "this list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" template. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I have my doubts that adding the {{expand list}} to this article at this stage makes a compelling argument to convince the reviewers to support your FLC nomination. As mentioned before, I think you would be better off limiting the list to the German Empire and Third Reich time frame. In its current state the article still has multiple issues, from weak lead, to technical issues and now I learn it is also incomplete. To achieve your objective, getting this list to FLC, you would be well advised to embrace some if not most of these suggestions and refrain a little more from pushing back on valid concerns. The choice is yours MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Noswall59, good job and thanks for finding the book. I would, however, strongly oppose including non-book sources in this article. I spent many hours finding book sources instead of non-book ones, and would hate to see newspapers or whatever in this article. I'm not acting like WP:OWN, merely stating my opinion as the main contributor to this articles possible FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther: Hi again Jonas, hopefully you will make progress with this. Just to point something out: the London Gazette is not a typical newspaper - it is a government register of appointments and official notices, and is, for that reason, a very reliable source for reporting facts. If Germany has an equivalent (which I imagine it might do) then it is worth exploring and I imagine it would be an entirely suitable source as well. Anyway, in reply to your other comments, I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into finding these references, which I have acknowledged before, but I do feel that you are essentially refusing to make a list more complete by not adding information based on reliable sources (for instance, the example I have given above). You also haven't really answered my point about looking at the German article. There are several examples of omissions in the English one where it can take little effort to find sources by looking on the German wiki. I have given on example above, for another, take a look at Heinrich VI of Reuß-Obergreiz, a FM of Saxony promoted in 1697; he had a long career and has an entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (transcribed at the German wikisource here), which is the authoritative biographical dictionary for Germany; it took two clicks to get that reference. Not all are going to be that straight-forward, and it would take a long time to work through that list, but you cannot deny that more information is not accessible out there. The article you cited above about Bernard Lee has been thoroughly researched and it is incomplete because it is clear that the information which would make it complete doesn't appear to exist any more (or at least not in any readily accessible manner); that is different from deciding not to incorporate information for reasons of personal preference, or not including it because it has not been searched out. I do believe, once again, that this article has scope for approaching completeness if this technique were adopted. As MisterBee says above, it is your choice whether you decide to look any further into this matter of completeness, or indeed any of the other points raised by the reviewers here. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Noswall59, sorry for the long delay in replying; I actually forgot I even had nominated this for FA-status. Regarding the London Gazette, I have no doubt it's reliable and very trustworthy, I merely rejected the idea of including non-book sources on the grounds that it would look stupid with one or two non-book sources as the article mainly consists of book sources. But, if it can help the article and the nomination, I think it should be included, absolutely. I will be happy to look further into matters, but would appreciate some assistance. I would be happy to see you editing this article without asking for my opinion, as I'm sure it would only improve the article. I just really want to see this article achieve FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther: Hi again Jonas, hopefully you will make progress with this. Just to point something out: the London Gazette is not a typical newspaper - it is a government register of appointments and official notices, and is, for that reason, a very reliable source for reporting facts. If Germany has an equivalent (which I imagine it might do) then it is worth exploring and I imagine it would be an entirely suitable source as well. Anyway, in reply to your other comments, I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into finding these references, which I have acknowledged before, but I do feel that you are essentially refusing to make a list more complete by not adding information based on reliable sources (for instance, the example I have given above). You also haven't really answered my point about looking at the German article. There are several examples of omissions in the English one where it can take little effort to find sources by looking on the German wiki. I have given on example above, for another, take a look at Heinrich VI of Reuß-Obergreiz, a FM of Saxony promoted in 1697; he had a long career and has an entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (transcribed at the German wikisource here), which is the authoritative biographical dictionary for Germany; it took two clicks to get that reference. Not all are going to be that straight-forward, and it would take a long time to work through that list, but you cannot deny that more information is not accessible out there. The article you cited above about Bernard Lee has been thoroughly researched and it is incomplete because it is clear that the information which would make it complete doesn't appear to exist any more (or at least not in any readily accessible manner); that is different from deciding not to incorporate information for reasons of personal preference, or not including it because it has not been searched out. I do believe, once again, that this article has scope for approaching completeness if this technique were adopted. As MisterBee says above, it is your choice whether you decide to look any further into this matter of completeness, or indeed any of the other points raised by the reviewers here. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- Noswall59, good job and thanks for finding the book. I would, however, strongly oppose including non-book sources in this article. I spent many hours finding book sources instead of non-book ones, and would hate to see newspapers or whatever in this article. I'm not acting like WP:OWN, merely stating my opinion as the main contributor to this articles possible FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I have my doubts that adding the {{expand list}} to this article at this stage makes a compelling argument to convince the reviewers to support your FLC nomination. As mentioned before, I think you would be better off limiting the list to the German Empire and Third Reich time frame. In its current state the article still has multiple issues, from weak lead, to technical issues and now I learn it is also incomplete. To achieve your objective, getting this list to FLC, you would be well advised to embrace some if not most of these suggestions and refrain a little more from pushing back on valid concerns. The choice is yours MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterBee1966, one can, just like the article about Bernard Lee does, add a "this list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" template. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I hear what you all are saying, but don't agree on much of it. And also, just because a list is incomplete, that does not mean it cant be a featured article - look at Bernard Lee on stage and screen. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to read this comment. It would help me if you could tell us what actions you intend to take on this article, don't forget that you had nominated the article, not us. I think you need to provide guidance and structure to the feedback you received so far. I am a bit lost now on what you will fix yourself and where you need help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterBee1966, to be specific, I would like some help with expanding the lead and adding the remaining field marshals who are not listed. Obviously I have included all I know and could find a source for, but I believe it was Noswall59 who pointed out that some Prussian FM's are missing. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have looked at List of British field marshals, so I understand now the lead could some an expansion, but I don't have any ideas for it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviewers have given you a few suggestions already. If I were you, I would first address the question of scope of the article, meaning you have to address the question of what is Germany in this context. With respect to this article, I would limit the scope to the timeframe German Empire onwards. This eases your task significantly. In the lead, remember a Featured Article has to be largely stand-alone, you could give an abstract of German military history pertaining to German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West and East Germany and the unified Germany of today. Then you could talk about how field marshals fitted into these periods and why they were abolished or did not exist in certain timeframes. You could also talk about how and who appointed field marshals in the various regimes and what role they played. Maybe you could also talk about grand admirals. They held a position similar to a field marshals. I think this is how I would approach the problem. I hope this helps you a little and gives you an idea on how to move forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonas Vinther:. Hi again, I agree with MisterBee on the whole. The scope certainly needs looking at and should allow you to develop the article. I am busy offline at the moment and so I won't commit to anything with regards to this article; I may well contribute in future. I will say that for the lead MisterBee is absolutely right, and you may need to summarise the rank, its seniority, its history, insignia, etc., and then summarise the list of those who held it - how many were there, were there any honorary appointments, perhaps tell us why. Look at explaining why there were no appointments under the Weimar Government and then why there are none after the war - assume the reader knows very little here. Hopefully, in conjunction with the British article, our advice should help you. Best wishes, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- The reviewers have given you a few suggestions already. If I were you, I would first address the question of scope of the article, meaning you have to address the question of what is Germany in this context. With respect to this article, I would limit the scope to the timeframe German Empire onwards. This eases your task significantly. In the lead, remember a Featured Article has to be largely stand-alone, you could give an abstract of German military history pertaining to German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West and East Germany and the unified Germany of today. Then you could talk about how field marshals fitted into these periods and why they were abolished or did not exist in certain timeframes. You could also talk about how and who appointed field marshals in the various regimes and what role they played. Maybe you could also talk about grand admirals. They held a position similar to a field marshals. I think this is how I would approach the problem. I hope this helps you a little and gives you an idea on how to move forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have looked at List of British field marshals, so I understand now the lead could some an expansion, but I don't have any ideas for it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (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) 14:05, 3 January 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 07:39, 13 January 2015 [36].
List of Governors of Iowa
I've been gone from the governor list racket for a while but I was inspired by the election to hop back in. This was a relatively simple list; very few governors had the rudeness to die or resign. I'm trying something new with this than my older ones, namely removing the "other offices" and "living ex-governors". I am being bold and suggesting these aren't very valuable, and add needless maintenance to the article. It doesn't really matter which ones are still living, and as for 'other high offices', even my solid criteria end up being subjective, and if someone really wants to know, it's a quick browse through the articles. That veers into the territory of being about the people rather than being about the office.
Anyway, please let me know what you think of these bold ideas, because whatever we conclude to be the best will be implemented in all the others. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I undid your change removing former living governors (if you wish to discuss, please do so on the article talk page, not here). I am curious if the idea of listing governors' terms as "1/2" if it was a partial term is used in any sources? I suspect it isn't, and it is rather inaccurate and misleading, so I would suggest its removal and replacement with the terms as they might be listed in an Iowa history book (I may look this up later, but it would probably be 1-2 wks). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of fractions is purely to indicate that a particular term was split between multiple governors. It has no bearing in sourced material but has been successfully used in over a dozen other featured governor lists. I wouldn't mind replacing it with a list of terms if that could be done well, but generally, due to the nature of rowspans, it isn't. Look at List of Presidents of the United States, for example - Nixon's term is much, much smaller than Ford's term, because rowspan simply isn't up to the task. In the past, I've run into problems with rowspans becoming infinitesimally small, so that it becomes misleading to the reader. Going with one cell per row fixes that issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point - and have had troubles with rowspans myself - but using a fraction to indicate a partial term can be terribly misleading. Better, I think, to have the full number of terms the governor served for part of, with an asterisk or a dagger to indicate that they weren't complete (or even a small (partial)). One might expect that if every governor has a whole number that some didn't complete the term and they should be aware of notes for partial terms, but the use of a fraction suggests an additional level of accuracy - and one that just isn't there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say on that front is: the few people who have expressed confusion didn't express further when the footnote pointing out how the number works was shown to them; it gives us a handy place to put the footnotes, rather than a mostly-empty column; and the existing featured governor lists included that. If the standard has changed that dramatically, fine, but I'll need more than a single point of feedback to accept that. However, the other lists included the 'other living governor' and 'other high offices' sections as well, so I was bold and suggested removing them. Had to start somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just the sheer ... inaccuracy ... of it that bothers me. It's the old rule from math - the more digits to the right of the decimal point you have, the more accurate you are. Yet adding the greater level of specificity here (1/2) actually does not add accuracy to the list.
- Pause.
- ...And I've just had an idea. What about using "+" to signify a partial term? This avoids the accuracy problem while still clearly conveying that it was more than just the number for the complete term. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, how would you suggest using that? Also keeping in mind, there are multiple types of partials. For example, when a governor enters a term mid-way, is elected, and exits their next term mid-way. The odd solution I came up with was "1/2 + 1/2" as seen on the List of Governors of Arkansas. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I just had a brainwave. Check out what I've tried. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks pretty great! It seems to solve the various problems quite nicely while remaining very easy to understand. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All I can say on that front is: the few people who have expressed confusion didn't express further when the footnote pointing out how the number works was shown to them; it gives us a handy place to put the footnotes, rather than a mostly-empty column; and the existing featured governor lists included that. If the standard has changed that dramatically, fine, but I'll need more than a single point of feedback to accept that. However, the other lists included the 'other living governor' and 'other high offices' sections as well, so I was bold and suggested removing them. Had to start somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point - and have had troubles with rowspans myself - but using a fraction to indicate a partial term can be terribly misleading. Better, I think, to have the full number of terms the governor served for part of, with an asterisk or a dagger to indicate that they weren't complete (or even a small (partial)). One might expect that if every governor has a whole number that some didn't complete the term and they should be aware of notes for partial terms, but the use of a fraction suggests an additional level of accuracy - and one that just isn't there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The use of fractions is purely to indicate that a particular term was split between multiple governors. It has no bearing in sourced material but has been successfully used in over a dozen other featured governor lists. I wouldn't mind replacing it with a list of terms if that could be done well, but generally, due to the nature of rowspans, it isn't. Look at List of Presidents of the United States, for example - Nixon's term is much, much smaller than Ford's term, because rowspan simply isn't up to the task. In the past, I've run into problems with rowspans becoming infinitesimally small, so that it becomes misleading to the reader. Going with one cell per row fixes that issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused -- aren't Terry Branstad and Terry E. Branstad the same person? And if so, why link them both and not tie them together in the lead? For a moment, I assumed they were different people (perhaps father and son?) Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 06:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The lead is on the lean side, I'd beef it up a little.
- Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs where possible.
- Avoid the use of the hash character to represent "number".
- I'm worried about the use of just colours to denote the party allegiance of the Lt. Gov, you name the party for the Gov each time, but WP:ACCESS seems to be failed for the Lt. Gov.
- No images of any of the former governers?
- Several footnotes are unreferenced, where can I cite them?
- Ref 21 is an en-dash fail.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on some of the others later, but re the Lt. Gov party - A note indicates that they share the governor's party unless specified, and each time when they are different there is a footnote indicating that. And the unreferenced footnotes can all be handled either through the constitutions (which I agree, need references) or the general NGA source. If I need to have a specific reference for each then I'd lose the joining of footnotes like we see for "died in office". There is one single-sentence paragraph; any suggestions on how that should be changed? And finally, what should it have other than "#"? --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick reply, WP:HASH has suggestions regarding the hash symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as FLs go, is it better to have images for some and not for others (depending on availability) or no images at all? It looks like a little over half of the articles currently have images in them. Several (but probably not all) of the others have images available that just aren't on Wikipedia or Commons yet. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases where I couldn't get ~90%+ coverage, I'll just pick a few and put them in a gallery along the side. Usually notable ones, as well as ones from each decade or what not, so that it's the same length as the table. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'd go with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases where I couldn't get ~90%+ coverage, I'll just pick a few and put them in a gallery along the side. Usually notable ones, as well as ones from each decade or what not, so that it's the same length as the table. --Golbez (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on some of the others later, but re the Lt. Gov party - A note indicates that they share the governor's party unless specified, and each time when they are different there is a footnote indicating that. And the unreferenced footnotes can all be handled either through the constitutions (which I agree, need references) or the general NGA source. If I need to have a specific reference for each then I'd lose the joining of footnotes like we see for "died in office". There is one single-sentence paragraph; any suggestions on how that should be changed? And finally, what should it have other than "#"? --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- As mentioned above, the lead seems a little short. A few ideas: Iowa Territory could be briefly mentioned. Is it possible to incorporate any info about currently living former governors? Party and possibly Lt. Governor also since they are column headings.
- I prefer the opening paragraph at the Featured List of Governors of Arizona
- ("The Governor of Arizona is the head of the executive branch of Arizona's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Arizona Legislature, to convene the legislature, and to grant pardons, except in cases of treason and impeachment." Consider adjusting some of the linking in the lead. Iowa State Legislature could be piped to remove "Iowa State" (quick turnaround of the word). "state's military forces" is two links but initially could read as one. Also, "National Guard" might be better than "military forces".
- Consider notable governors (possibly from the lead) next to the table
- Would it be useful to have any sorting function in the tale? Party is the only one that jumps out since I don't think it is possible or necessary to view it in reverse chronological order.
- The redlink in the last footnote is not needed. Also needs sourcing.
Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (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) 07:44, 13 January 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 19:37, 14 December 2014 [37].
List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers
- Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previously not promoted, I'm nominating this again because I believe this is know according to the FLC criteria. This list was previously reviewed by The Rambling Man, Vensatry, and Vibhijain. The list is based on List of South Africa women Twenty20 International cricketers. As always, your comments and suggestions are appreciated. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets the standards, very well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 08:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (ping)
—Vensatry (ping) 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Made a slight ce to remove some redundancies. Another good list. Cowlibob (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2014 (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) 19:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015 [38].
List of tributaries of Catawissa Creek
I am nominating this for featured list because:
- Prose. I won't pretend to be a good judge of prose, but I did give it a copyedit and I didn't notice any issues with the prose. I also asked someone I know offline, and they liked the prose.
- Lead. I believe the lead does a fairly good job of introducing the topic and of explaining some basic facts about the tributaries as a whole.
- Comprehensiveness. I think it goes into a reasonable amount of detail. It is not as long as the somewhat related FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek, but it's my opinion that that other list is a little too detailed, so the list I'm nominating should be fine. This list could not easily be integrated into the article on Catawissa Creek without unbalancing the article.
- Structure. The article contains a lead section with basic facts about Catawissa Creek and its tributaries. The next section contains a table of the tributaries of the creek and the subsequent sections contain tables of sub-tributaries. I belive that this structure is fairly intuitive and it is also similar to the structure of the FL List of tributaries of Larrys Creek.
- Style. I don't know the MOS by heart, but this does meet the specific guidelines at WP:FLCR. There are no redlinks and no major accessibility issues. The majority of the tributaries have pictures and all are CC-BY-SA images taken by me. Captions are impractical since the images are inside tables, but the meaning of the pictures should be obvious.
- Stability. The list is extremely stable. In fact, there has been only one substantial contributor and two minor copyeditors. No edits to the list have been reverted.
I haven't had much luck with featured content, but hopefully this will pass. Thanks for considering it. --Jakob (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment - I think it would be best to list details similar to those found in List of tributaries of Larrys Creek; I think it's valuable information that would lead to a much more comprehensive list, and I don't see any reason to not include it when it's available. Also, nice job with the taking the pictures! I know it's not easy. However, I'm not a huge fan of the missing pictures (10 out of the 26). Not sure what others think, but it may be worth removing the images column, and instead provide only a few of the best images in a gallery (as is done with the Larrys Creek list). The water bodies aren't particularly distinguishable from each other, so I don't think images for each listing add much value (especially when other data could be included in its place). At the same time, though, doesn't hurt to include them. Finally, I'd definitely include page numbers when referencing the lengthy PDFs. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose a creek that is not even 50 miles long should not have a sub-article on its tributaries. A road that long should not have a separate article with all the intersections it gets. If this is not a 3.b violation, then it should be AFDed for GNG. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoe can this NOT be easily included in the parent Catawissa Creek article? There are 20 entires here that have way too much information listed here which can be presented in a shortened format there. Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to try it. Personally, in fulfilling Wikipedia's gazeteering functions, I'm not entirely sure this is a GNG violation. Either way, I'm noting that I (with my delegate's hat on) consider this oppose inactionable at FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment the above oppose is really just IDONTLIKEIT. All the items in the list have their own articles, and I see no problem at all with gathering them into a list. Unless the commentator actions his own threats, this nomination is good to go. So, some actionable items.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a good list and my issues have been addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - the list has been well-improved to satisfy the comment I posted above (now collapsed). Glad to support. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SchroCat
- I suggest making the image column unsortable: it's not usual to sort by image;
- Any chance of bundling the five citations in the "Mouth elevation" column?
- I know it does look a bit ugly, but all of them are needed. The elevation lists only list streams in one county each and four such lists are needed (the National Map is needed since Tomhicken Creek's elevation is slightly off in the elevation table). --Jakob (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- the sorting is slightly off in places. "Mouth elevation" shows David run last, even though it's not the longest; distance from mouth: cross run shows up towards the end, even though it contains a dash. (Check the other columns and tables too)
- Some of the numbers need to be sorted. 9.10 miles should just be 9.1 (and a number of others too; 08.3 should be just 8.3
– SchroCat (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All good now. A map would have been ideal, to show the location and/or course, but there's nothing obvious on Commons. Maybe have a quick search to see if you can find anything PD, but that doesn't affect my support here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was asked to comment here and find it meets the FLC criteria. I have made some minor copy edits to the article to polish the prose. I am impressed that there are so many images of the tributaries, and added one of Catawissa Creek itself to the lead. I think it would be great if a map could be added - have you tried asking User:Kmusser, who makes beautiful stream maps? Even when a map is added, I would still include a picture of the main stem (Catawissa Creek itself) in the article. The only quibble I have is that the reference links in the three Notes are just URLs and should be formatted like any other web ref in a FL. I am OK with this being different than the Larrys Creek trib list (which I am the main author of), but do think it would be pretty easy to add left and right bank info here (to the list itself), as well as mentioning river mile explicitly (I know it is linked). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:18, 3 January 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 16:20, 3 January 2015 [39].
Akshay Kumar filmography
- Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the filmography gives a good summary of Akshay Kumar's extensive career in the Hindi film industry. Issues raised during the previous FLC have been addressed. All helpful comments on improvement are welcome.Skr15081997 (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- The captions are all basically saying "Kumar at _____", very repetitious
- Changed
- "Kumar was initially signed for a lead role by producer Pramod Chakravorty for the film, Deedar (1992) but made his acting debut in the 1987 Mahesh Bhatt-directed Aaj"..... this detail would be better in Kumar's main page rather than here. Just say Aaj was his debut and later mention his role in Deedar.
- Changed
- "The following year he starred"..... add a comma after "year"
- Done
- "many of the films he starred in during 1997–99 performed poorly at the box office"..... give names of such films
- I have mentioned a few of his flop films.
- "Kumar's career prospects improved"..... something about this just doesn't come across as professional writing
- Changed
- "In the same year he received a nomination".... again, add comma after "year"
- Done
- "In the same year he presented the television series" → "That year, he presented"
- Thanks for the suggestion.
- "His role in the comedy, Garam Masala, earned him"..... remove the commas
- Removed
- "appeared in comedy drama, Housefull 2, and action comedy Rowdy Rathore" → "appeared in the comedies Housefull 2 and Rowdy Rathore"
- Thanks again.
- "satirical comedy drama, Oh My God"..... remove the comma
- Removed
- "The following year he starred in heist thriller Special 26"..... once again, comma after "year"
- Added
- "Indiatimes" should link to Times Internet, and only link this on the first ref used for this site
- Fixed, now it links only on first occurrence.
- Digital Spy should not be italicized, and I'd try to replaced this if possible. Not saying it's bad, just saying there's even better sources that could be used.
- Replaced.
- What makes "Bollywood Hungama" or "Sify" reliable sources?
Sorry, but this is not up to par. Better luck next time. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both BH and Sify are considered reliable sources for India related articles. Many FAs and FLs use them. I have fixed the usage of comma everywhere in the lead.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: I've also checked above and they seem to be met. I've not used BH or Sify before but Bollywood Hungama has been used extensively in various FLs including recent ones like Hrithik Roshan filmography, Shah Rukh Khan filmography, and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filmography. Sify was used in Hrithik Roshan and Aishwarya's filmography also. Have another look and suggest further improvements for Skr. Cowlibob (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. This looks better now, particularly the lead. Let's go through ref's again:
- Zee News is owned by Essel Group
- Added
- Publisher for The Indian Express is Indian Express Limited
- Added
- The publisher of The New Indian Express is Express Publications (Madurai).source
- Is "Koimoi" reliable?
- Replaced
- Remove "Press Trust of India" from FN20 so it matches the other Rediff links
- changed
|agency
to|author
I was admittedly skeptical about this becoming FL, but it seems to have a chance now..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay. This looks better now, particularly the lead. Let's go through ref's again:
- Support Looks good to me. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 06:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from Krimuk90
- In the film section, please restrict the award nominations to National Film and Filmfare Awards, to maintain consistency with all other Indian actor filmography tables.
- Why are some talk show appearances mentioned in the television section? Surely, Kumar has appeared in many, many more than the ones mentioned. I personally don't think they shouldn't be included here as they aren't exactly part of his film or television "work".
- Also, in the television section it will be more beneficial to include the creator and/or producer information than the channel.
(Dipping in regarding the above):
- I think the awards are fine as they are: if he hs recieved awards from notable organisations (i.e. if we have an article about them), then the list is incomplete without the awards. Consistency between articles means little if it means we end up misleading by omission.
- I also think the talk show appearances are fine (I have them in a number of my lists), but opinions differ on the point).
- I am not sure that creator and/or producer information tell us anything about the programme. "Channel" is far more common in television lists, than excess amounts of other people connected to a programme.
- SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat The reason why I want to limit the awards is because there are more than 10 different awarding organisations in India, and Kumar has won awards from several of these. This particular list talks about Filmfare and IIFA, but omits the rest. My understanding is that we limit the awards to the most notable ones in this particular list, which are the National And Filmfare Awards, as the full list is already mentioned in his awards page. About the talk shows, why cherry-pick only Koffee with Karan when Kumar has appeared in many other notable ones. Either we mention all notable talk shows, or don't mention them altogether. I agree that the creater/producer information is not all that important, so the channel information is alright. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) x 2 In terms of the awards and the talk shows, I would include all or none. The only caveat to that would be that the awards have to be notable enough to have their own article here to meet out notability thresholds. So, if he has won awards from all 10 notable organisations, we should include all 10 notable awards. I certainly wouldn't put OR into deciding which are the "most notable". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the edit conflicts. Anyway, what you say is totally understandable. But with regards to the awards, why would we want to include all the awards in this list too when there is already a separate page for them? I don't mean to argue over this, but just want it to be cleared is all to avoid similar conflicts in other filmographies. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) x 2 In terms of the awards and the talk shows, I would include all or none. The only caveat to that would be that the awards have to be notable enough to have their own article here to meet out notability thresholds. So, if he has won awards from all 10 notable organisations, we should include all 10 notable awards. I certainly wouldn't put OR into deciding which are the "most notable". Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - I missed the link to the awards page. In that case, I'd remove all the awards from this table (not the lead tho) on the same basis: you have to have all or none. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Krimuk90: I'd back SchroCat on this. For filmography articles, the note section should not include awards won if a separate awards article is present as it's just repetition. Of course, you can still mention the major awards in the lead so nothing of value is lost. Cowlibob (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Cowlibob: I have removed the information regarding awards and nominations from the notes column. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Krimuk90: I'd back SchroCat on this. For filmography articles, the note section should not include awards won if a separate awards article is present as it's just repetition. Of course, you can still mention the major awards in the lead so nothing of value is lost. Cowlibob (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah - I missed the link to the awards page. In that case, I'd remove all the awards from this table (not the lead tho) on the same basis: you have to have all or none. - SchroCat (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Krimuk90: I have removed the information regarding the IIFA and Asian Film Awards nominations. Talk show appearances have also been removed. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Opinions may vary on the awards, but this version has my support. Good job! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2014, he starred in the action thriller Holiday: A Soldier Is Never Off Duty, which became his third film to gross over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) at the box office." Add domestic after "over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) at the" as he has featured in more than three films which has grossed over ₹100 crore (US$13 million) (internationally). Correct me if I am wrong.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 12:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FrB.TG: The given source doesn't specify the domestic-international box-office fact. Hence I have just added that it was his 3rd film to earn more than 100 crores. Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:17, 3 January 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 12:21, 22 December 2014 [40].
List of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars
I am nominating this for featured list because after the first failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. The article contains a fully-comprehensive list of songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Credits are supported by the liner notes of the appropriate record, while additional commentary is verified by reputable sources. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly two months, I hope it won't happen again. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fully detailed list and nicely sourced. Well done! Simon (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from SNUGGUMS
- "by brothers Jared Leto and Shannon Leto" →"by brothers Jared and Shannon Leto"
- Fixed.
- remove "ultimately" from "was ultimately released in August 2002"
- Done.
- how about including some detail in the lead on the writing for non-singles and the songs they covered?
- Done.
- Are "Kaos2000 Magazine", MusicRadar, Melodic, and "RWD Magazine" reliable sources?
- FN3 (Kaos2000 Magazine, an independent webzine) consists of an interview with Milicevic and Wachter from the band. MusicRadar is a music website published by Future plc. Melodic and RWD Magazine are independent online magazines. I've also added a source by Shoutweb (former independent webzine).--Earthh (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not too bad, just needs some touching up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- The Rambling Man, do you have any further concerns? It will be useful if you express your final opinion about this nomination since it is nearly two months old.--Earthh (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it looks fine to me now, so I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2014 (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) 12:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 15:40, 12 December 2014 [41].
Jared Leto filmography
I am nominating this for featured list because after the first failed nomination I believe it satisfies the criteria. Jared Leto is a well known actor who deserves his own filmography page. I think the lead covers the most important information of his films and the tables explain in a good way his several activities. Any comments will be addressed swiftly. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly two months, I hope it won't happen again. Thanks, Earthh (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now
- Rather than the lead, citations for roles should be included in the tables.
- Fixed.
- "Leto landed his first film role"..... doesn't seem very encyclopedic, try something like Leto's first film role was
- Fixed.
- "amongst other notable awards"..... not really a neutral description. I would definitely mention that his role in Dallas Buyers Club won him the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actor, possibly MTV Movie Award for Best On-Screen Transformation as well. Of course, not every award should be mentioned.
- Fixed.
- Since there's lots of mention on movie reception, I'd add some quotes from reviews.
- I've limited movie reception to only his major roles. I'd avoid adding quotes since they're more suitable in the main article.
- FN2: Does not mention anything about a "cult following", so let's find a different source for such a claim
- Done.
- FN10: Movieline should be italicized
- Done.
- FN17: I'd try to find something better than Salon
- Done.
- FN23: Unlink The New York Times and Variety (magazine) per WP:OVERLINK as those were already linked in previous ref's
- Comment: I would advise against this. Overlinking isn't considered applicable outside the article body. Consistency is probably a better rule to go by: link them all, or link none. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.
- FN24: Unlink The New York Times (again) and only link the first instance of MTV for same reason given in FN23
It's not too bad, but needs work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SNUGGUMS, please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns. Thank you.--Earthh (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking better now. I would also remove the music videos from this and details on Thirty Seconds to Mars- that detail instead belongs in Thirty Seconds to Mars discography as it pertains to the band more than Leto himself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The music videos listed in this article are directed by Leto himself (not the whole band), so they belong to this page.--Earthh (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking better now. I would also remove the music videos from this and details on Thirty Seconds to Mars- that detail instead belongs in Thirty Seconds to Mars discography as it pertains to the band more than Leto himself. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, looks like we haven't got a consensus here. I have to archive this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2014 (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 08:28, 22 December 2014 [42].
Guy Sebastian discography
- Nominator(s): Usfun8991 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the featured list criteria and is sufficiently comprehensive. Any comments or suggestions that may assist in improving this list would be much appreciated. Thank you. — Usfun8991 07:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Support A comprehensive and well sourced list. Nicely done! Simon (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plenty of information and all is sourced. I think it meets the criteria for a featured list! I do have a question though. In studio albums, what is up with all the numbers next to the record label? BMG (#82876587792). -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: Thanks for your support! The numbers are the catalogue numbers for the albums. I'm not quite sure why they're there. Do you think they are appropriate for a discography article or should I move them into their individual articles? — Usfun8991 (talk) 12:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: I haven't actually seen them on many articles, like Drake Bell discography, I don't see the catalog numbers for the albums. Also, take an already featured list, Taylor Swift discography. No Catalog numbers there, or on the albums. I don't think they belong at all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: All done! — Usfun8991 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: Ok, full on support now. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 08:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Joseph Prasad: All done! — Usfun8991 (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Usfun8991: I haven't actually seen them on many articles, like Drake Bell discography, I don't see the catalog numbers for the albums. Also, take an already featured list, Taylor Swift discography. No Catalog numbers there, or on the albums. I don't think they belong at all. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Prosperosity (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
Support All issued I'd raised have been dealt with. Good job! --Prosperosity (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
That's in on a very quick run through. Hope it helps. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the highest for an Australian Idol contestant" I don't see how ref 2 cites this claim.
|
Comments – The subject is not one I know anything about, and I cannot usefully comment on how the page matches FL criterion 3. A few comments, which I hope will be useful:
- Lead
- "the highest for an Australian Idol contestant" – missing a word, evidently. I think you want "the highest number"
- Singles
- To a non-expert in popular music the distinction between "with" and "featuring" in the first column isn't obvious
- References
- The Manual of Style (MOS:QUOTE) bids us rationalise punctuation within quotations, on which basis I think you ought to replace the hyphens and spaced em-dashes in your references (e.g. refs 71-80 etc) with spaced en-dashes or unspaced em-dashes.
- Similarly I think, with regard to MOS:QUOTE, the titles of songs should be capitalised in the refs to conform with how they are capitalised in the main text, so that – for instance – you don't have "Oh, Oh" in the text and "Oh, oh" in the refs, and similarly with "In the Midnight Hour/In The Midnight Hour" and so on.
- Ref 66: inner quotes should be single.
That's all from me. Tim riley talk 09:05, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tim riley: "featuring" means the artist is featuring on (Guy Sebastian)'s song, where as "with" means both artists are credited equally for the song. This is also made evident in the individual articles. Also, what do you mean by inner quotes? — Usfun8991 (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support having completed my comments listed. -AngusWOOF (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from AngusWOOF (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
-AngusWOOF (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC) updated 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
- 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) 08:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was withdrawn by SchroCat 21:51, 26 December 2014 [43].
Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame
This list was created as a result of a collaboration between me and AJona1992. This idea came about we talked wanting to make a large contribution to an article related to Latin music and thus list was created. Erick (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts 17:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
|
- Support. Issues have been resovled or fixed. Great looking article, great job! — DivaKnockouts 17:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- I think you could add a reference to the last sentence in the lead (about De Vita), maybe the same one that you used in the table. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jaespinoza: Done Erick (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "the merit of each nominee vis a vis" - "vis a vis" sounds unnecessarily flowery (plus I'm not sure it's spelt like that), how aboue just "with regard to"?
- "Cuban salsa songstress" - "songstress" again seems a bit flowery, how about just "singer"?
- "his career as a professional conga in Latin music" - isn't a conga an instrument? Surely this should be "conga player" or similar.....?
- Think that's it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I have addressed all of the above. Erick (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- three months after she was murdered at the age of 23, and was named the Hot Latin Tracks Artist of the Year - So she was named Hot Latin Tracks Artist of the Year when she was murdered, three months before making the hall of fame? That's what it reads like
- The lead bothers me. By all rights it should highlight the key points of the list, not reproduce it in more detail. Otherwise, what's the point of a list? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco1492: On your first point, after looking at it again, I decided to remove since it feels so out of place. On your second point, I need some clarifications. I'm guessing minor points like "Mexican banda group Banda el Recodo became the first musical ensemble to be inducted in the Latin Music Hall of Fame in 2004." doesn't need to be mentioned? I'm basing this list off of Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year which is FL. Erick (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a highlight. In this lead, you mention each and every individual and why they were inducted, which is going to be untenable as the list grows. The lead should be a summary of the list, and not replace it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco1492: Could you please give me any examples or suggestions? I'm still not sure what to do. Erick (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- TRM's comment just about does it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
- It would be better to include a description of the winners and why they won it in the table rather than cram it all into the lead. The lead could then be used to establish what the award is, when/why it's awarded, how the award is perceived globally etc.
- Heavy reliance on the Billboard source, is this award covered by WP:RS other than the people who award it?
- The template calls it "Latin Music of Fame" - missing a word?
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are wonderful suggestions TRM! I'll go ahead and revamp the prose and list sometime soon. I don't know if it'll be enough to fix those issues for the FLC in time. I'm somewhat considering withdrawing the FLC so that I can do the necessary change to the article. Cheers! Erick (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Erick, if you could let me know if you decide to withdraw and I'll action it for you. Similarly, if you decide you have time to re-work based on the above suggestions, letme know and we can keep it running for a little longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by Crisco 1492 15:40, 12 December 2014 [44].
Timeline of the name "Palestine"
- Nominator(s): Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. It covers a topic which has been studied for a least the last 300 years (e.g. Reland in 1714). It was created three years ago, and has proven remarkably stable. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's some poor luck. No reviews in two months. I'm going to have to archive this. Next time, if you're interested in getting eyes on your nomination, it might help to review other nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2014 (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 19:12, 14 December 2014 [45].
List of municipalities in Nunavut
We are endeavouring to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 6 nominations into account for this nomination.
With your reviewing help, we are hoping to eventually reach featured topic when all lists are featured quality and have been promoted. Our project is currently 6/13 complete, hoping to make it 7 with this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thank you for your input! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list looks fine, and does not appear to be a fork. One thing I noticed though, where do the remaining 10 people live? Nergaal (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: thanks for reviewing. Five live in the unincorporated settlement of Umingmaktok, while five live in the unorganized portion of Baffin Island. I can add a note tomorrow afternoon at the end of the first paragraph. The note will indicate that the remaining 0.03% of the population, or 10 people, are split between these two places. Does this location seem appropriate for the note, or did you have another location in mind? Hwy43 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list looks fine, but please clarify "Cities, Town and Villages Act" - I assume it refers to the constitution of Canada. Nergaal (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal:. Thank you for your review and support! The act in question is legislation of the neighbouring territory to the west, the Northwest Territories. The second paragraph mentions this and the note at the end of the first sentence explains why Nunavut uses the legislation of its neighbor. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - short and sweet, only a couple small comments that I don't think are worth holding off for.
- The first sentence of "Cities" is so long! Cut it off after "Community Affairs", then start the next sentence up as "The proposed city must have a minimum assessed land". Same thing for "Towns". Done
- Note c says there's three unincorporated settlements, but note d only lists 1, plus a region. Do settlements without citizens count as settlements?
- Comment - To protect privacy, Statistics Canada rounds the population of communities with 15 or less people to the nearest 5 people, so both settlements could very well have residents. Even if they truly both do not have any residents, the places are still designated as "settlements" according to Statistics Canada. Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the FLC for Hugo Award for Best Fancast up above - it's also short! --PresN 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Iqaluit held town status prior to incorporating as a city. - When
- Cities, Town and Villages Act - Why not just stick to CTVA throughout the body? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ce and the review. I've made the changes, and found a source for the dates cited. Please let me know if there is anything else that can improve this article as well as the lists for the other provinces and territories. We are planning on creating a featured topic with all lists, having 6/13 already standardized and at featured list status. Mattximus (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written article. Good work, Mattximus and Hwy43. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2014 (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) 19:42, 14 December 2014 (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
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating
- Notified: Parutakupiu
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
- Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
- None of the tables are accessible
- No alt text on any of the images
Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination.Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to allow time for improvements to be made, so striking my vote to delist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, I have begun work on this article today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Indian Premier League seasons and results
- Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [46], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:
- Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [47], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023.
Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament.
Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.- The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves
The tables themselves have multiple problems too:
- The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
- The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
- "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information
As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [48]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one more issue I've found: Player of the tournament column has flags without country names in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Also, there are players listed as Jamaica, Trinidad etc in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG (they compete(d) internationally for West Indies, not the constituent countries). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The main tables were once sourced, but a series of edits in 2021 by Rachit Methwani seemed to remove these sources for no clear reason. Unless someone adds them back, the list fails WP:FLCR #3b. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – per above, ping if someone changes anything. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I made some flag changes, but this is incidental to the main issues as detailed above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons
- Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
- 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
- 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
- 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
- 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
- 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.
The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Per nomination, ping if there are any changes. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - lack of suitable citations is my primary concern, but there are other issues too, as detailed in the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]