Razr Nation (talk | contribs) +1 |
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 honors received by Maya Angelou/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of camouflage methods/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of camouflage methods/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bernard Lee on stage and screen/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bernard Lee on stage and screen/archive1}} |
Revision as of 15:41, 23 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, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of honors received by Maya Angelou
- Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it failed its first nomination due to lack of support, and I believe it's to the point that it can pass. This also happens to the last stage in the creation of a Maya Angelou FT. Her 85th birthday is April 4, so I'd like it to happen by then. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the first nomination was archived too early. Probably worth asking people to review that page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 14:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the notes column, descriptions should not end in period, unless they are complete sentences. Also why National Book Award nomination is not mentioned in the table? Ruslik_Zero 18:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed periods. I wasn't able to find a source that states the year of the nomination, so I removed it from the lead. (Lots of sources state that it happened, though, so it belongs in other articles that don't require a year.) Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Astros4477 |
---|
Comments –
-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 22:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, my comments were addressed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Ref 17 has an excess quote mark after the publisher (New York Times) that needs removal.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments much improved from the initial nomination, good work.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the kind words, useful feedback, and catches of stupid errors. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:11, 22 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, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
List of camouflage methods
- Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it lists a substantial number of methods of camouflage, showing how each is applied in different contexts in zoological and military usage, with images and citations for each instance. The main camouflage article describes the theory of these methods but does not have space for so many images, nor for such a long list with its detailed classification of methods and contexts. The two articles together, however, provide encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
I didn't do a thorough review of the article yet, but the problem I had at first glance was that there are no explanations on the camouflage methods. The name and images are not always sufficient for a non-expert to understand what they are talking about. For example, I can't readily tell the difference between "aggressive mimicry" and "special aggressive resemblance". In fact, when looking at the examples for special aggressive resemblance, I get the feeling that this method is about concealing the danger you present (or trying to "look innocent") but the name suggests otherwise. If you could add another column to the table that gives a brief explanation on each method (especially since most of them don't have individual articles the reader could look at), that would be great. I'm not asking for lengthy and detailed explanations, but at least a line or two. This deals with camouflage methods after all and not only examples of camouflage, so I think as a stand-alone list it should be more self-explanatory.Chamal T•C 15:21, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, done. I wasn't sure that so much text was permitted in a list but have gladly supplied brief explanations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No other issues from me. It's a bit different from most FLs, but I think it is of FL quality. Chamal T•C 02:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 19:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments definitely an interesting list, something we rarely see here, so well done for that!
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - it's a pretty cool list, and I'm almost ready to support, except... what are the last three columns sorting on? I can't tell if it's actually sorting on the image's file name or what, but it doesn't seem helpful. --PresN 20:00, 8 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 23:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
Bernard Lee on stage and screen
With a career in acting that started at the age of six and ended with his death aged 73, Bernard Lee was a RADA-trained English actor who is probably best known for playing the role of M in the James Bond films. This record of his professional work has been split away from the main Lee article as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Comprehensive, thorough, and expertly put together. I conducted a few copy edits and over linking issues in terms of linked common words such as "English" and "stage"; too small to list here so I just cracked on with it. Congratulations on yet another fine list on an overlooked and underrated actor. -- CassiantoTalk 19:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments a few picky things...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. On an unrelated note, I'd love to do something like this for Astaman or Rd Mochtar. Shame tracking anything that's not a film (including the character) would be next to impossible without digging into archives. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support - Excellent and fascinating. The lack of theatrical end dates is not a problem and I prefer the article acknowledge the absence as it now does. I'm sure some end dates will find their way into the article in short order. Considering how long ago these performances were I see no reason why this or the lack of a complete list of stage credits should bar an FL status. I don't like the title "selected stage credits". Perhaps you could find some way to acknowledge that this is the most comprehensive list of stage credits known to the editors and that there may be other stage appearances, otherwise readers may be left with the impression that you intentionally left out performances for whatever reason. Does the "role" column really need to be sortable? "M" and "Superintendent Meredith" are his only recurring roles. Perhaps add a note to the effect that Lee also played this other lesser well-known role (or perhaps not, probably not). Otherwise I got nothing out of that sortable list. I sometimes think people add sortable columns because they can, not because they need to. Title and year are all that need be made sortable. I think you should add his day of birth and death back into the article. Readers shouldn't have to click onto the main article to learn either; nor should they be left with the impression that the editors don't know the dates. I can forsee future editors putting those dates back into the article. My only other suggestion - and I'm willing to bend on this - is to change "suffering from stomach cancer" to "battling stomach cancer" though I'll defer to the majority opinion about that. I'll look through the lists for disambiguation errors. I've already spotted one: Danger Point. - Fantr (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is slight value for making the roles column sortable if for example readers just want to look at his Bond entries, so I'm happy to leave that to the nominator's discretion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, and especially for the additional theatre references you provided, which are now all added. I've dealt with the two tags you left on the page: both points have now been corrected. I would also prefer to see full dates of birth and death as I always maintain those datres refer to the individual actor, rather than the career, which is dealt with in the rest of the lead and article. Does anyone else have a view on this (I'm sure I've seen both formats in other lists). I agree with the "Selected" aspects of the stage section, and I've reduced the title to "Stage", which is more in line with the other sections. In terms of the sort, I've previously found it useful when looking for a particular character, (normally if someone has played one of the more notable roles), so I guess the added level of functionality doesn't hurt to be in place, even if it is only going to be used by a minority of readers. Thanks again for your comments and all your additional help on this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – It's another great job and there aren't really any "improvements" I can suggest. Just one thing caught my eye, the entry for Bons Baisers de Hong Kong (1975) has been tagged; technically a Featured list shouldn't really be tagged because it indicates unaddressed problems. If there are other sources giving contradictory accounts then it would be much better to just clarify the confusion with a note. Otherwise, it's a comprehensive, well sourced and nicely structured list and I support its promotion. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC) EDIT: I see Fantr tagged that entry just before I read it so obviously it's not an oversight on your part. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments and support, Betty—they are much appreciated! As I mention above, the tags are now gone, with the points being dealt with. Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 06:37, 13 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 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Chaminda Vaas
Continuing the cricket offensive on FLC, I'd like to nominate List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Chaminda Vaas for consideration. I've been taking my time with this, but I think the article meets the standards and is ready to be reviewed. This is my first FLC in more than two years, so please feel free to give it a thorough review. Chamal T•C 02:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing raised my attention when I was reading the article. However I am not an expert in cricket. Ruslik_Zero 17:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Per MOS:NUM, when comparing two numbers they should be in the same format, so "with 12 in Tests and four in One Day Internationals" should be either 12 and 4 or twelve and four.
- Cricinfo and CricketArchive both list him as a fast-medium, and given that has a distinct meaning from fast bowler, I would change "As a left arm fast bowler, he was accurate.." to "As a left-arm fast-medium bowler, he was accurate.."
- Minor point, but I would prefer a comma the number in "..accumulated 1155 Test wickets.." (making it 1,155) but it's only a personal preference really, so I'll leave it up to you.
- "..the highest number of wickets he had taken in a single match." Should be "has" not "had".
- Support All in all, a very well written list, and my points above are so minor that I'm happy to support the article even before the requested tweaks are made. Harrias talk 11:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment – Note 1 has too much punctuation in the first sentence. Try removing the period after "guessing". Giants2008 (Talk) 21:31, 9 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 23:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
Oregon Symphony discography
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and follows guidelines outlined by WikiProject Discographies. Please note the COI statement on the list's talk page. I recognize that COI editing can be controversial, but I have invited many other contributors to examine this article and it has received a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors as well. The content of this list is pretty non-controversial and matter-of-fact (album titles, years, featured works, etc.), so I do not believe this COI should be problematic. The list has been constructed from physical liner notes as well as reliable online references whenever possible. Thank you for taking time to review this list. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- It looks really good, just some minor things to take care of.
- Do you know the full release dates for all of the album? Or at least include the month and year of release.
- I included as much date specificity as possible. If I were to come across sources with more specific dates, I'd be happy to update. The sources I used were the CD liner notes and Allmusic. In doing research about all of the albums, I was able to find some specific release dates. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Add the release formats (CD, LP, etc.)
- Added CD as format for all recordings. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great and thank you! Support — Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I have a few comments:
"DePreist was granted artistic autonomy during his final five years as music director due to a $1 million bequest that established the Gretchen Brooks Recording Fund" Is the fact that he was granted artistic autonomy really important for this list? I actually do not understand how it is related to the discography.- Done. Now reads: "During DePreist's final five years as music director, the Symphony was able to fund two recording sessions per year due to a $1 million bequest that established the Gretchen Brooks Recording Fund." Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Each of these featured DePreist as conductor, despite his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003" Does this mean that the recordings were made while he still was the conductor but released after he left? Or were they under some special arrangement? The meaning of this sentence is cryptic to me.My understanding is that they were recorded during his tenure but released following his departure. Now reads: "Each of these featured DePreist as conductor but were released following his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003.". Better?--Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]- This is more accurate, since I am not sure all albums mentioned in the sentence were released after his departure in April 2003: "Each of these featured DePreist as conductor, though some were released following his departure from the Oregon Symphony in April 2003." Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruslik_Zero 18:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Please let me know if there are other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but I am not sure about the inclusion of the box. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox artist discography has 3295 transclusions. Is it the inclusion itself you dislike, or something specific about this one? --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the infobox is pretty standard for discographies. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Infobox artist discography has 3295 transclusions. Is it the inclusion itself you dislike, or something specific about this one? --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Thanks, TRM. FYI, the article for This England is currently awaiting a Good article review, I am still working on expanding and promoting the Music for a Time of War article to Featured article status, and I am working on a draft of the Schwanter album. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:12, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nicely done. Meets all six FLC criteria. In the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I'm a member of the Oregon Project. I've made a few minor tweaks to the prose, and I added a bit of info and an updated URL to the image description page at the Commons. Otherwise, I've not worked on the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, FT. I am thrilled by the number of support votes this list has received in 7 days and I hope my work on these articles help to demonstrate that quality content can be added to Wikipedia despite conflicts of interest. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:29, 8 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, 12 March 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
List of songs recorded by Cheryl Cole
I am nominating this for featured list because... I have promoted five other lists similar to this to FL for other singer's and believe that I have taken comments raised in previous nominations of mine and have applied them to this article. I think it is a nice, simple yet informative, concise list. AARON• TALK 20:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "collaborations with others." Other what? Be specific, I take it you mean recording artists?
- I've been told to remove this from my 5 previous nominations of song lists for Rihanna, Adele etc. AARON• TALK
- As far as I'm concerned its currently too ambiguous, it could refer to anything. High quality prose should have no ambiguities, it needs to be explicit who the others are. NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told to remove this from my 5 previous nominations of song lists for Rihanna, Adele etc. AARON• TALK
- "Cole's first solo recording outside of the girl band that she is a member of, Girls Aloud..." This is not professional prose, needs revising
- "on 16 October 2009 and was written..." Comma after 2009, replace and with which
- you start off the third para saying a year later, but this is not correct. The last date you referred was the same year as the one in this sentence. I would remove the phrase altogether
- I'm a bit concerned that the prose just reads like list of who wrote what at the moment. There is not a lot of flow between sentences. I would suggest getting an experienced editor to give it a copyedit
- I'm just following how the the 5 FLs are written which have been promoted. AARON• TALK
- That may be so, but its not an excuse to pass up the issue just because its modelled after other lists. You need to improve the flow between sentences, as I state above it just reads like a list of facts currently. Needs a copyedit to polish it.NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a change to the bit about Call My Name by mentioning the genre, is that the sort thing you would like me to apply to make it flow? AARON• TALK 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By flow, I mean how one sentence runs into another. Although adding that info is helpful it doesn't address the issue. You need to ensure the sentences flow into each other and don't read like this: Person A wrote this song. Person B wrote this song, which is how it reads to me at the moment. NapHit (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to echo here. I have read the lead and although it is properly sourced, I am not completely comfortable at how it is written. I understand that this does not apply only to your list, but to all lists of this type. I'd prefer a lead focused on recurrent songwriters and genres, evolution of music styles through her studio albums, meaning and performance of most successful or widely known songs, and so on, but all meshed together to have an engaging prose. — ΛΧΣ21 18:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By flow, I mean how one sentence runs into another. Although adding that info is helpful it doesn't address the issue. You need to ensure the sentences flow into each other and don't read like this: Person A wrote this song. Person B wrote this song, which is how it reads to me at the moment. NapHit (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a change to the bit about Call My Name by mentioning the genre, is that the sort thing you would like me to apply to make it flow? AARON• TALK 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be so, but its not an excuse to pass up the issue just because its modelled after other lists. You need to improve the flow between sentences, as I state above it just reads like a list of facts currently. Needs a copyedit to polish it.NapHit (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just following how the the 5 FLs are written which have been promoted. AARON• TALK
- The table shouldn't change when it is initially sorted. 3 worlds needs to be moved to the top or forced to sort to to the bottom
- Contents box is missing the letter A, J and Y when there are songs that start with those letters
- hyphens in references should be en dashes
NapHit (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state I'm going to have to oppose this nomination. The prose does not meet featured standards, an example being: "Cole is also member of Girls Aloud". The flow between sentences is almost non-existent an needs working on before it meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Once these issues and the above comments about the lead are resolved, I'll be happy to support. Nice work! Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't I and Boys. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Per WP:SEEALSO, links that already appear in the article or any nav boxes needn't be also included in the See Also section. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs)
- I couldn't find anything about the B-sides, then ended up reading a massive interview about her album haha. OKay. — AARON • TALK 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, but Cheryl Cole discography is listed in the navbox. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? — AARON • TALK
- Towards the top, underneath where it says "Cheryl Cole", to the left of where it says "Songs". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got no idea where you are talking about, as her discography is not linked anywhere. Besides, a See also section no longer exists. — AARON • TALK 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that it's essentially a moot point at the moment given that the SA section has gone, but, for future reference, I was referring to the link here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Got no idea where you are talking about, as her discography is not linked anywhere. Besides, a See also section no longer exists. — AARON • TALK 22:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Towards the top, underneath where it says "Cheryl Cole", to the left of where it says "Songs". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? — AARON • TALK
- Nice, but Cheryl Cole discography is listed in the navbox. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find anything about the B-sides, then ended up reading a massive interview about her album haha. OKay. — AARON • TALK 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After I made some tiny fixes, I am confident to support this list of songs. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Very well formatted and cited. Good job. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — The list looks good (citations, formatting). Well done! — Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by Gary Kirsten
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs), Vensatry (talk · contribs)
Just when you thought it was safe to return to FLC, along comes another international cricket centuries list. Vensatry (talk · contribs) created the basic article, I tidied it up a bit.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Chris, for considering me as a co-nom. Would be glad to work with you. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chamal T•C 12:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
A few things worth mentioning in the article:
|
- Support Looks good. BTW, I thought I had provided sources along with my comments; sorry about that. Looks like you didn't have a problem anyway. Chamal T•C 12:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - I have absolutely no knowledge of cricket other than a basic overview, but seeing as ChrisTheDude is helping 2001 NFL Draft (a topic he knows nothing about) avoid demotion I feel like I should give some input here. The prose quality is excellent, and very readable. The tables are easy to read (flags are a nice touch there) and all sorting functions work, and the key is very clear. I can't really see any issues here that violate criteria. Overall, this is very good list so great work here. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comments – I think the slash in "1996/97 series" is better off as an en dash for purposes of following the MoS. That's about all I saw, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut
An interesting list of those players to have taken five-wickets in an innings on their debut in women's Test cricket. Test cricket is almost dead within women's cricket, having being replaced by the more marketable one-day formats of the game, so this list is unlikely to grow much over the next few years. In just over 130 Test matches, 13 players have achieved the feat. There could be an argument made that this list would be a 3b violation in favour of List of five-wicket hauls in women's Test cricket, but I'm not sure how practical such a list would be. It would have 94 entries, which is retained in this format would be somewhat unwieldy in my opinion. If it were condensed, then this list would still have value as a stand-alone list. There are a number of red links in the list at the moment, but I am working through them over the next few weeks, so I am confident that by the time this nomination closes the remaining red links should be in the minority. As always, all comments and insights would be appreciated. Harrias talk 17:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Might it be possible to create entries for redlinks Vivalyn Latty-Scott and Rebecca Steele? — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the above blurb: "There are a number of red links in the list at the moment, but I am working through them over the next few weeks, so I am confident that by the time this nomination closes the remaining red links should be in the minority." I am prioritising the players who took the five-wicket hauls. So, succinctly, yes. Harrias talk 18:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like Joyce was player of the match, so indicate that in the table. However, it looks like the award wasn't given at any of the other matches. Not even the more recent ones, strangely enough. Chamal T•C 16:48, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I opted not to include it for that very reason: it is an award that has been infrequently presented in women's Test matches, and when it has been presented, it hasn't always been published. So it might be that others have won the award, but we don't know about it, or certainly that others would have won the award had it been presented. It seems to be unfair, in my opinion, to give undue precedence to Joyce for this reason. Harrias talk 16:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support. Looks a bit better upon revisiting the page. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Comments –
- "Maclagan's bowling figures of seven wickets for 10 is the best by any woman on Test debut". "is" → "are"?
- Minor, but the semi-colon in the photo caption should be a regular old comma instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- 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, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [9].[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) [10].[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) [11].[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) [12].[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) [13].[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.