Razr Nation (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) add one |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Garfield Sobers/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Flashman Papers/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel/archive1}} |
Revision as of 16:04, 8 March 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by Garfield Sobers
I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this list for quite some period of time. Sobers is arguably the greatest all-rounder to have played Test cricket. The centuries list is almost nearing completion with all the red links turning out to new pages with FL stars. We should have got this long back! Comments and suggestions are welcome. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments from Albacore (talk):
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] More comments (a revisit)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments
- "He has scored" => "He scored" (as he's not likely to score any more)
- Refs after "greatest all-rounder" are not in numerical order
- "Sobers scored 8,032 runs while retiring in 1972" = > "Sobers scored 8,032 runs before retiring in 1972" - he didn't score the runs while he was in the process of retiring
HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Photo caption: "second highest number of centuries in Test cricket a the time of his retirement." "a" → "at".Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Good work! Zia Khan 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
Might be worth mentioning that the "Batsman of the Match" wasn't a regularly presented award (perhaps add a note to the key), unlike the "Man of the Match" they have these days; most of the matches in the list don't have any such award. I was wondering why he didn't have more until it dawned on me that those awards are a more recent addition to the game, so I reckon somebody who doesn't know that piece of history would find it confusing.Chamal T•C 04:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm removing it for the same reason which Harrias mentioned here. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No other issues I can see. I think this is good to go. Chamal T•C 06:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - About the only issues I can find is that 'duck' is not defined (and that really isn't an issue at all if the reader has a knowledge of cricket) and I would put a comma after "England" in the sentence saying he had 10 centuries against them. Toa Nidhiki05 02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
The Flashman Papers
The Flashman Papers are a series of twelve historical fiction books, written by George MacDonald Fraser and centred on Harry Paget Flashman, a coward, rake, adulterer, drunk, liar and cheat—and that's just what he says about himself. The series is a fantastic romp through the military hotspots of the 19th century in the company of one of the most colourful characters in literature. SchroCat (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few queries were dealt with there. I haven't dealt much with Featured Lists, and so I carefully checked the FL criteria before commenting. This article seems to me to meet all the criteria and I can't think what anyone who reads it might wish to find that isn't there, nor is there anything in the article that shouldn't be. It is a most entertaining read into the bargain. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim, Many thanks for your comments at PR and your support here: your suggestions have tightened this up very nicely! Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I to was at the peer review and thoroughly enjoyed my time there. The article is engaging, well written and a comprehensive account of its subject. All of my comments were embraced and met with satisfactory responses. A credit to the nominator indeed! -- CassiantoTalk 23:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Cass, for your support and PR input. Both are much appreciated and—as with Tim, above—your thoughts have really helped improve this article. Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I never normally review at FLC as lists are far beyond my technical abilities, but I commented on this one at PR and can't resist anything to do with Sir Harry. The prose is top-notch, and this article is very comprehensive. All my comments at the PR were addressed. In the interests of strict accuracy and fairness, I can only really comments on 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the FL criteria. (The other two criteria are the reasons I don't do lists! I leave them to those with more ability...) Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarastro1, Many thanks for your suggestions at PR, and for your support here: both are very much appreciated. And I'm glad there is finally a Flashman article in good order: I just have to work on a couple of the others now! - SchroCat (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support I had my say at the peer review. Limited to prose and comprehensiveness, if you correct the problem with "often taking actions that cause or affect subsequently infamous actions," too much action!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, but there is quite a lot of prose in this "list", and the table format of the publication sequence does not seem to add very much: indeed, the length of the (very good) notes means that there is quite a lot of space in the first four columns. The table could be easily turned into continuous prose, with one paragraph per book. Would WP:FAC be more appropriate? The nearest comparable featured lists - List of James Bond novels and short stories and List of Maya Angelou works are both a lot more "listy". I am struggling to find a comparable featured article - perhaps The Lucy poems. Or has this been discussed elsewhere already? -- Ferma (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ferma, It's not been discussed anywhere else really (although possibly very obliquely). I was the one who first put together the push to update what was an article called "James Bond novels", to get it to GA status. It's now changed to the list article (and an FL one) List of James Bond novels and short stories. It was done because it was more a list - a breakdown of books and summaries, together with a brief background summary. It's pretty close to what we have here in many respects (deliberately so, as I copied the layout and format when I wrote this one). I went through the list/article debate in my mind a couple of times, but this still felt more like a list than an article, with no requirement at FL, or anywhere else I could find, that meant it should be categorised as an article. I'd be happier with it staying as a list, as that's what I feel it is closer to, but I am very open to hearing what others would have to say on this point... - SchroCat (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a fair point that Ferma makes, but it is also worth noting that featured lists have moved on significantly since the days of "intro + table" which used to define what a list article was. Ordinarily, if you slapped an article which was even 50% prose and 50% list at FAC, it'd be "send it down" or optimistically "send it to FLC". When we collate a bunch of related articles together in a big list/table and summarise them, and provide a lovely, articulate lead, this is a featured list candidate. There has been debate over what a list is versus an article, but we tend to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Right now, this list is being assessed against WP:WIAFL, if it evolved into something else in the future, well that's a future discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Enjoyable read. Looks very good in all, I just have some comments:
Once these issues are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Just given this page another quick once-over and, if we're all satisfied that it's a list rather than an article, then I feel that it meets the FL criteria. One more minor note I would make is that, since Category:Flashman novels is a subcategory of Category:British novels, then there's no need to include the latter on this page. All in all, good work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks ATD: I've removed the British novels category, as suggested. I can see the arguments for this as an article, but I still feel that this does fit within the FL arena, rather than going down the FA route: the main meat of the page is a list, after all. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel
Right on the heels of the Theodore Sturgeon Award's FLC comes its older brother- the Campbell novel award, for English-language scifi novels rather than short stories. It serves as the second "Campbell" award, thus the long article title, after the John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer. This list is based on the Sturgeon list, and I just went through and added in the fixes requested by the reviewers there. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, high quality, well-cited page, though it'd be really nice if someone could create articles for the redlinks, at the very least make them some helpful stubs with descriptive text and just a few references. :) — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The notes section is empty
- You should follow direct quotations with citations (namely "..."small enough to discuss among its members all of the nominated novels" but look for others).
- " Since 2004 winners have received a personalized trophy, while since the inception of the award a permanent trophy has recorded all of the winners." -- this could use a little more clarification and a bit of a copy edit. Where is this permanent trophy kept? The second part of the sentence seems unnecessarily difficult to convey the information to readers (not a fan of the wording).
- Thoughts on adding a note about tied winners to the lead? I find it quite interesting the current holders share the award. Ruby 2010/2013 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above done. There were ties as well in 1974, 2002, and 2009; there's nothing in the official records as to why, especially seeing as there's 9 voters on the panel right now. --PresN 00:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am thrilled to be back at FLC! I have decided to nominate this awards list, which was formerly promoted to FL status only to be downgraded a few months later. Since then, Scissor Sisters has received additional awards and nominations and I do not believe the same arguments for demotion apply. Happy to address concerns as they arise. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question: There are currently two dead links. Unfortunately, I am unable to find working links to verify these claims, which is unfortunate since I believe the claims are true and were verified during the previous FLC process. Should this information be removed until a working link can be found? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you tried retrieving the links through the Internet archive? NapHit (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I am not familiar with the archive. Perhaps if I do some investigating it will be self-explanatory. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Another Believer (Talk) 18:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Oops, forgot about the second link.
Doing...--Another Believer (Talk) 18:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The archive will not work for the Blender link and I am unable to find the "500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born" list elsewhere. Should I remove this recognition from the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. Unless we can verify it another way, it's not really suitable for inclusion.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Removed claim and added a note on the article talk page explaining reason for content removal. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think so. Unless we can verify it another way, it's not really suitable for inclusion.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The archive will not work for the Blender link and I am unable to find the "500 Greatest Songs Since You Were Born" list elsewhere. Should I remove this recognition from the article? --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I am not familiar with the archive. Perhaps if I do some investigating it will be self-explanatory. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, clear and simple formatting, duly cited throughout with appropriate notation and citations. — Cirt (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well cited and organized. Great work with the list! — Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - After checking over everything, I can't really see any issues. Toa Nidhiki05 20:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 08:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Otherwise looks fine to me! Zia Khan 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"The group gained prominence after signing with the independent record label A Touch of Class, during which...". There's no time period here that "during which" would be related to. This part needs a rewrite.
- Better? Now reads: "The group gained prominence after signing with the independent record label A Touch of Class and their songs..." --Another Believer (Talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are page numbers possible for refs 15 and 33? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not own either book. I cannot find the Grammy book at my library, so I have replaced the reference with an online source verifying the same information. I have added the "1001 Albums" book to my library hold list and will update the page number ASAP. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Well, it turns out I cannot find the album listed in the book I picked up from the library. However, the library only has the "revised and updated" version. Accordingly, I have removed the book as a reference and included the Los Angeles Times link instead. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Sufur222
- Ref 33 is dead, and thus needs replacing. Also, in the same reference, Billboard should probably be linked, and it is currently published by Prometheus Global Media (which should also be linked), taking over from Nielsen Business Media in 2009.
Apart from that, the list looks fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced dead link. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
Latin Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Tropical Album
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Tropical Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental contemporary tropical albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. It is awarded to solo artists, duos or groups; if the work is a tribute or collection of live performances, the award is presented only to the directors or producers. — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ21 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Three dab links, Déjame Entrar , Fonseca, Coronel... In future, please try to find these issues before nominating.
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- You don't actually talke much in the lead about the winners, there's a couple of sentences, but you could do more.
- Check all links. You seem to take a random approach as to whether to honour people's diacritics or not, sometimes even using a pipelink to _not_ honour them...
Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) |
---|
Comments by DivaKnockouts
|
Support — DivaKnockouts 06:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, the citations look good! Well done with the list. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.