→Nominations: add my nom |
|||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Deportation of Armenian notables on 24 April 1915/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Deportation of Armenian notables on 24 April 1915/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce/archive1}} |
||
<!--New nominations go at the top of the "Nominations" list--> |
<!--New nominations go at the top of the "Nominations" list--> |
Revision as of 20:22, 27 December 2013
Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.
Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat. |
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects |
Featured list tools: | ||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: |
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:29, 9 March 2014 [1].
List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches
- Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I present to your waiting eyes: a list of every head coach of the Navy Midshipmen. Under different management 39 times since beginning in 1879, Navy is my favorite college team, and this list is my first attempt at getting an important Navy football article to featured status. Thanks, Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 09:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- This page has no categories, pretty sure that might be needed. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I pretty much completely forgot about that. Added appropriate categories now. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Article needs to comply with WP:DASH e.g. year ranges need an en-dash, not a hyphen.
- Fixed.
- Per WP:YEAR you don't need to repeat the century if it's the same within a range.
- Fixed.
- Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a period.
- Fixed.
- Check MOS:NUM, usually numbers below 10 are written as words.
- Fixed.
- MOS:DTT for screen readers needs col and row scopes to be implemented.
- Unfortunately, I don't understand what you mean.
- This is an example of adding the col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The N/As and Int need to be forced to sort in the correct order when sorting by the hash.
- Corrected.
- Avoid hash for "number" per WP:HASH.
- This is standard for these kind of lists (ex. List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches).
- George Welsh and Paul Johnson are dab links.
- Fixed.
- ""X" indicates an interim year without play." not seeing this anywhere.
- Removed.
- Doubt you need Category:Navy Midshipmen football as Category:Navy Midshipmen football coaches is more refined.
- Removed.
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all but issue #5, which I, if possible, require a better explanation for. Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is well referenced, but a few minor issues: (1) The titles of Notes and Footnotes should be swapped. Notes are for citations, and Footnotes are for general comments about things in the article. (2) I'd like to see responses by Awardgive to the recommendations by The Rambling Man, above. (3) Paragraphs two and three of the WP:LEAD sect are quite short, these should probably be merged together to just have three total paragraphs in the lede intro sect. (4) There's room in the page for a couple more free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to address all of your concerns (save the one complication from The Rambling Man's review). Thanks for the review, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 22:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Thanks for being so responsive to my suggestions, — Cirt (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I know very little about football which probably contributes to my dropping in on a list which at first glance I mistakenly thought was about naval officers who later became head coaches... Anyhow, a few observations:
- The lead is well written and gives a nice overview of the list.
- Thank you.
- I have added the references to the lead, thanks for finding those.
- The paragraph beginning with Vauix Carter, the “perfect 1.000” could probably use a citation, or a comment that he won the only game he coached. Perhaps some of the other stats presented in the paragraph could use citations.
- Added a note explaining that he only coached one game.
- The main reference for the entire coaches table appears to be another Wikipedia list which covers only the 2013 NCAA season. Some of the coaches have a reference, but the majority don't. You may want to use this reference (which you do) to cover the entire coaches table. -- Godot13 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced the table to the Coaching Records website. Thanks for the suggestions, I have attempted to apply all of them to the article. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I still don't understand why the general note "[A 7]" for the entire Coaches table contains "Statistics correct as of the end of the 2013–14 college football season" when only #37 on that list had a game in 2013... Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand.-Godot13 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's alright. The note is standard for lists like this (example: this). It's really just there to say that the list is up-to-date and everything is correct. Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 17:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- "becoming one of the first Independent schools in that division" - lowercase i, the linked article doesn't capitalize it.
- "No coach" is sorting under N; better, I think, to sort before A or after Z.
- Similarly, "—" should sort before 0, not after 0, in the bowls column.
- You have two images down below the table, but the table isn't that wide, leaving a ton of whitespace on the right side on my monitor. Why not move the images up next to the table?
- Why the heck are references 3 and 9 Wikipedia articles? Wikipedia articles are not RSs.
- If no author is specified, you should leave the author fields blank, rather than putting in "staff" or "staff writer".
- Consider archiving your online references with a site like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the cited sources ever change or go down, it doesn't affect your list.
- --PresN 22:19, 3 March 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 Hahc21 10:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]
How I Met Your Mother (season 1)
I am nominating this for featured list. Thanks in advance for taking the time to review this list for its WP:FL? compatibility! haha169 (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The most important part of TV season articles (and the part that makes this a list rather than an article - there is a lot of good prose here) is the table of episodes. But naturally just the names and production info isn't all that vital: readers (including me) like to know briefly what happens in each episode without having to go to each article. Episodes 1, 7, and 14 are fairly good, but most others could hardly be called a summary, so I'd really appreciate an expansion of these. More review to come. Reywas92Talk 05:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I googled several of these summaries after noticing they didn't seem like typical WP writing style - they're mostly copied from stuff like http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-news/releases/view?id=11590 and tvrage.com/How_I_Met_Your_Mother/episode_guide/1. You did a good job with the text sections, but these have been there since the article's creation, and these copyvios need to be completely rewritten, not just expanded. Reywas92Talk 05:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, those are much better. Here are some other suggestions:
- The lead summary is a little too detailed, particularly "but when she moves to Germany for a culinary fellowship, Ted and Robin nearly have sex." if that could be rewritten.
- "Ted's self-appointed best friend and womanizer" sounds like he's Ted's womanizer.
- Award names should not have quotation marks. (Casting and Awards sections)
- "who were cast as Ted and Marshall respectively" is redundant to the first paragraph's info.
- Tense should be consistent in reception, e.g. derides -> derided.
Reywas92Talk 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, fixed all of these things. Looked over the tenses in the whole article and I think I caught all of the errors there. Thanks for the suggestions!! --haha169 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Nice work on the list, but the references could be fixed
- Main sources such as The Hollywood Reporter and Orlando Sentinel should be listed as work instead of publisher.
- The publisher of the sources should be the owner of the publication. For example Tribune Company would be for the Orlando Sentinel, Prometheus Global Media for The Hollywood Reporter, The Walt Disney Company for ABC Television Group and so on and so forth.
- For ref 21, the article's title should not be all caps per se WP:ALLCAPS policy.
- For ref 22, the work is credited as the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences with its abbreviation ATAS as its publisher.
Otherwise, I support this list for promotion
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Excellent effort overall by Haha169. I do agree with the comments by Birdienest81, above, in particular those first two comments about work and publisher modification recommendations to citations. Another minor thingy: there should not be an External links subsection, if there are no actual external links. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by DragonZero
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
|
- Support I believe it would be better to have the cast section either in the parent article or the character article, as it is information that relates to the series as a whole instead of just a season. Otherwise, no further issue as far as I can see. Please revisit your review for Code Geass if possible. Thanks. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 12 February 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 Hahc21 17:55, 18 February 2014 [3].
List of bowlers who have taken over 300 wickets in Test cricket
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list includes bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets in Test cricket. The list also went through a Peer Review and I think this now fulfills the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated. Happy holidays to all! Cheers, Zia Khan 19:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Çomments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Minor issues have been addressed. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
On what grounds you decided to fix the 300 mark as a significant achievement in Test cricket. Why not 200 or may be 400? —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]- I thought that was answered in the lead with the references to sources quoting a 300-club etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at ref# 3, 4 and 5. —Zia Khan 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- May be, also have a look at [4], [5] and see what the man at top of the table feels. Although I'm aware that we shouldn't rely too much on Cricinfo, the most comprehensive cricket website, see their standards for "Most wickets in career". Fixing 300 wickets as an yardstick based on some random news sources seems arbitrary to me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Before creating the list I had asked for opinion here. Also, at the PR non of the reviewers had this kind of concern, including Harrias (talk · contribs). I'm not fixing 300 wickets, you may create lists for for 200, 400 or most wickets etc. There are only 11 and 4 bowlers with 400 wickets in Tests and ODIs respectively, and too many bowlers have taken over 200 wickets and many others are about to reach the 200 mark. Many cricket articles depend upon these "random news sources". You showed me Cricinfo's standards for the most Test wicket, so look at this for List of Test cricket triple centuries. Actually, your concern is just like this one. —Zia Khan 11:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- May be, also have a look at [4], [5] and see what the man at top of the table feels. Although I'm aware that we shouldn't rely too much on Cricinfo, the most comprehensive cricket website, see their standards for "Most wickets in career". Fixing 300 wickets as an yardstick based on some random news sources seems arbitrary to me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at ref# 3, 4 and 5. —Zia Khan 20:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that was answered in the lead with the references to sources quoting a 300-club etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought WT:CRIC is the right place. After reading the last comment it's clear that you haven't got my point. Since TRM is a co-nom, I may have to wait for others opinion and will continue with the review if they are satisfied with your benchmark. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I don't have a problem with it: Only 11 bowlers have taken over 400 wickets in Test cricket, so that seems a little restrictive, while in excess of 50 bowlers have taken over 200 wickets, so that seems too inclusive. At the moment, this seems the best balance. The line has to be somewhere, and this in my opinion is the most logical point to draw it. Harrias talk 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Harrias. We need to have a benchmark, and 300 wickets is the most balanced one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- The title of the article should be "more than" not over. I'll look at the rest of it in a bit. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the table is sorted by surname, should this be sorted by number of wickets taken, as this is the focus of the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is sorted by surname because this list is about the bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets rather than the list of most wickets?! Earlier this was sorted by wickets, I changed it because Harrias suggested this at the PR. —Zia Khan 13:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the deafault should be the number of wickets. Compare with (mis-titled) List of batsmen who have scored over 10000 Test cricket runs. Every single Test match/ODI I've ever watched on TV that shows a "career best" table during a slow period in the game, lists the achievement by total runs/wickets/catches/stumpings, etc. Maybe that's just me though. Any others with thoughts on this? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The list you mentioned will be discussed if gets a nomination here. Referring my previous comment, I would say a list of most wickets may be created. Anyway, lets wait what say others! 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Fine with that, just makes sense to me to have it highest to lowest by wickets taken. Another example is List of tallest buildings in the world. No one would really want this listed A-Z, as the key fact is the height. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'm with Nutlugs here, the wickets taken is the key parameter. Should initially sort by that. Bummer. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with that, just makes sense to me to have it highest to lowest by wickets taken. Another example is List of tallest buildings in the world. No one would really want this listed A-Z, as the key fact is the height. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The list you mentioned will be discussed if gets a nomination here. Referring my previous comment, I would say a list of most wickets may be created. Anyway, lets wait what say others! 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think the deafault should be the number of wickets. Compare with (mis-titled) List of batsmen who have scored over 10000 Test cricket runs. Every single Test match/ODI I've ever watched on TV that shows a "career best" table during a slow period in the game, lists the achievement by total runs/wickets/catches/stumpings, etc. Maybe that's just me though. Any others with thoughts on this? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is sorted by surname because this list is about the bowlers who have taken 300 or more wickets rather than the list of most wickets?! Earlier this was sorted by wickets, I changed it because Harrias suggested this at the PR. —Zia Khan 13:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the table is sorted by surname, should this be sorted by number of wickets taken, as this is the focus of the article? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice one. Another question - is Daniel Vettori still active in Tests? Hehe, Nutlugs. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose
While I'm convinced with the "300 figure", I don't think the prose does enough justice to this list at the moment. The first para seems okay, while the second one just reads like a list of facts. Given the amount of sources available and facts to be included, I think the lead can be re-written slightly to make the prose even more engaging. —Vensatry (Ping) 11:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what may be changed here. I'll leave this to The Rambling Man. —Zia Khan 21:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is very well sourced throughout. Good job by Vibhijain and Lemonade51 with helping to address some minor fixes, and nice response by Sahara4u to those comments, above. A few recommendations: the title for the sect Notes should actually be Footnotes, as Notes refers to actual citations and Footnotes refers to comments on article text at the end of the article; in addition, I think the article has room enough for a couple more free-use images, if possible. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but you should change "The list is initially arranged by the most number of wickets taken by a bowler" to "The list is initially arranged in order of number of wickets taken". "Most number" is not gramatically correct English. It should be "highest number", however saying that the table is sorted by the highest number of wickets taken by a bowler implies that bowlers could have multiple numbers of wickets taken, which is obviously nonsense. My suggested version is gramatically correct and makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted. The minor concern left can be handled outside this nomination. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 17:53, 18 February 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 not promoted by SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]
List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of 2013
I am nominating this for featured list because... I think this list is appropriate for being a featured list. Simon (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two issues I have are that there are no third-party sources (which I'm sure must exist for this topic) and the content fork (criteria 3b for FLs) with List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, which covers the same material. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a fork because this has much more information and highlights about number-one singles only in 2013, while the list of 2010s does not include this. Also I have added several third-party sources — Simon (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject" - the subject being Hot 100 number-one singles, so the decade and individual year lists will always be content forks of each other. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a fork because this has much more information and highlights about number-one singles only in 2013, while the list of 2010s does not include this. Also I have added several third-party sources — Simon (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is indeed meticulously cited, nice job so far by HĐ, however as to the quality of the sources themselves, I think it likely that third-party-sources exist for this info. Are the current sources satisfactory for WP:RS and WP:V? Yes. But still it could only help to improve the page further to buttress those with additional third-party-sources, as well. As far as the existence of the list page itself in relation to List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, as mentioned above by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, I think I'd like to hear from additional editors about that element, before weighing in further on that issue. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- I agree that it would be nice to more sources outside of Billboard; I see they're are some that are from other websites, but I'd like to see more.
- I would also like to see the dates written out in the citations, as opposed to the current number abbreviations in the article.
- Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates can be formatted as YYYY-MM-DD and there's nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 13:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher for all of the Billboard sources (same with Hearst Corporation for Digital Spy.) WikiRedactor (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The publishers are not really necessary here and are repetitive. Nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a problem (since some of my suggestions appeared to be just personal preferences), and the content is all in order, so I will support this nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The publishers are not really necessary here and are repetitive. Nothing wrong with that — Simon (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 3.b. This list has essentially only 11 entries and could be easily merged into a "... singles of 2010s". Nergaal (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose WP:CFORK of List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s. Adabow (talk) 21:12, 21 March 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) 10:37, 3 July 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 07:58, 23 January 2014 [7].
List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls
A list on fifers taken in world cup matches, modeled based on the centuries list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Lemonade51 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Page is currently an orphan, no other main space pages link to it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support I cannot find any problem in this list. Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—Zia Khan 23:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments–
|
- Support – good work! Waiting for you at my nominations. —Zia Khan 23:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list has been promoted. There may be a slight delay while waiting for the bot to process the nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:56, 23 January 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 10:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]
Bibliography of E.W. Hornung
E.W. Hornung was a tireless writer between 1897 and his death in 1921. A friend of Arthur Conan Doyle (whose sister he married), and Oscar Wilde, he is probably best remembered for his four books featuring the gentleman thief A. J. Raffles and his partner Bunny Manders: the fictional counterparts of Doyle's Holmes and Watson. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Many thanks Lemonade51; all points now covered, I think. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – Fine list. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks Lemonade51: very much obliged for your thoughts and time on this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cassianto (Talk) 14:12, 02 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Cassianto comments
|
Support – per above resolved comments. I will leave the technical stuff to those who know. Superb work as always! -- CassiantoTalk 07:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I rarely engage with FLC, and have had to refresh my memory about the criteria. I believe this article meets them all. A few minor quibbles, not affecting my support, but possibly worth considering:
"In 1893 …his friend Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" – not Sir Arthur until 1902, and you don't need two blue links to him in successive paras.
- Quite right - the second link was an oversight after dealing with one of Cassianto's comments: now tweaked to show "Hornung dedicated the book to his friend, the writer Arthur Conan Doyle" on the first instance, and slimmed down and de-linked on the second. - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ypres – worth a blue link, perhaps
Blue links in tables – I notice you link things on every occurrence (e.g. seven "Cornhill Magazines" in succession). Is this the usual protocol for tables? Fine, if so. I merely mention it, but there's quite a lot of bright blue hitting the eyeballs.
Info-box - "Books - 2"? Non-fiction books, it turns out. Perhaps clarify
That's all from me. I am sceptical about info-boxes as a rule, but the one here is a great benefit – pithy and elegant. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 2 January 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) 22:29, 12 January 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.
List of awards and nominations received by Bruno Mars
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC) diff.[reply]
- Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked really hard on this article to be a stand out above others. Besides this, I belive Bruno Mars and all his fans deserve this, despite so far having a short career the nominations and awards have been plenty regarding hsi music skills and achievements. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments to get you up and running - a lot to do here.
Suggest this is
Have struck suggestion to withdraw, but haven't got time to re-review yet, it looks improved however. Sorry I didn't get back here, it appears I didn't add it to my watch list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page looks much improved by MarioSoulTruthFan after implementing the suggestions by The Rambling Man, see changes since nomination at DIFF. I think I'll wait to review further until after reevaluation by The Rambling Man here. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate's note: this nomination was archived, but owing to issues with the bot closure appears to be taking longer than usual. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 23 March 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 not promoted by SchroCat 10:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [9].[reply]
List of songs written by Bonnie McKee
- Nominator(s): Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. The list contains table-sorting facilities and is very easy to navigate, contains images and is a stable article. Samjohnzon (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Her debut single "American Girl" was released in 2013—but the table lists "Trouble" and "Somebody" from Trouble (2004) as singles?
- You don't need the refs in the lead and the photo-captions for stuff that is referenced in the table. Remove them.
- She was named Rolling Stone's "Best Secret Weapon" in 2011—this sentence makes it seem like an official, major honour ("she won for Best Album at the Grammys), when it's likely just an off-the-cuff remark.
- McKee is perhaps best known for collaborating with fellow singer-songwriter Katy Perry—the cite at the end doesn't seem to back this up. I also think it's a bit much to call Perry a "singer-songwriter"; it makes it seem that she is in the mould of McKee.
- "Thanks For Nothing" → "Thanks for Nothing". Audit for similar throughout per the rules of MOS:CT.
- Decapitalise the all-caps titles in the references per MOS:CT. The "(Legal work)" is also unnecessary.
- I urge you to use WebCite or something to create a backup of your BMI refs, just in case they change their URLs suddenly (it's happened in the past with several industry websites).
- Some of the refs are missing publisher name; some are wrongly name "BMI | Repertoire Search". Please audit all your references for errors.
- Not a fan of the separate table for the chart toppers; mostly a redundancy. Instead I suggest two things, choose either: a) list UK and US chart positions for all the songs in the main table or b) create a hat-note or symbol for the chart-toppers (separate ones for UK and US).
- Those three notes right at the bottom need a better home, and also should be alphabetised instead of numbered to prevent confusing with the ref nos. I suggest doing what I did at List of current Indian chief ministers (see below the main table).
- In the "Contents" you should remove the alphabets with no entries; "0-9" and "N", for eg.
- The "Indicates songs written solely by McKee" symbol is unnecessary IMO. That she wrote it solely is self-evident from seeing her name alone. Also it seems to only apply to her Trouble songs.
- "Indicates promotional single release" should be replaced by a hatnote since it's a single occurrence.
Lots of niggling problems, but no biggies as far I can see. Once these are resolved I look forward to supporting.—(locked-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Should have fixed all of these problems now, thanks for the feedback. Samjohnzon (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I'll take another look in detail and give my support after the weekend. Indopug 122.172.46.163 (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I forgot about this. One last thing: you haven't added a source that verifies the songs that topped the charts.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support once the above comment is taken care of.—indopug (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is quite well referenced throughout, and also has great tabular presentation and formatting that looks high quality to me as compared with previous Featured Lists. One small issue with this particular one: the notes at the end of the list, the four last notes at the end of the subsection Songs, should be contained in their own separate subsection called Footnotes. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- No need for that bold start in the lead, certainly no reason to have bold links.
- Image captions which are not complete sentences do not need to take a full stop.
- No need to repeat McKee three times in the first three sentences.
- "McKee is well known for co-writing" this sounds like an opinion without a reference.
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
- Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
- Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
- Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
- Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of these with the exception of:
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." is this claim referenced?
- Notes are typically referenced if they make claims which aren't referenced elsewhere.
- Check ref titles for WP:DASH compliance.
- Check refs have publisher information, e.g. check ref 37 for instance.
- I'll leave these for the nominator who likely has more knowledge of the subject than I do. Gloss • talk 21:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd lead in with the 50+ credits and move the number of number ones to later one (probably just a straight switch). You want to define your scope clearly from the outset and then move on to more specific information; as is the opening sentence sets up expectations of a very brief list.
- I'm not convinced the table needs indicators for number one singles; this can easily be set up either in the lead, in referenced captions along the side (for example, the Katy Perry one could be expanded with a list of which five, followed by a ref; this would also fill up a little more white space). As we have it, it just seems odd to focus so up-front on only two markets.
- Where has this woman been all my life?
- Consider alt text for your images to better comply with WP:ACCESS.
- "Eight of these have topped either the British or the American charts" -> I'd explicitly mention and link the UK Singles Chart and Billboard Hot 100 here
- "In 2012, McKee co-wrote three songs on Adam Lambert's album Trespassing and two songs for Ke$ha's album Warrior, "C'Mon" and "Supernatural", the former of which served as the second single from the record." -> Overly long. Best bet might be to name the Lambert songs, end sentence, start a new one for the Kesha songs.
- ""Dynamite" became the second-best-selling song by a British artist in the digital era." -> Big claim, needs a ref. Might also be worth clarifying what the "digital era" is (given that compact discs are digital media, is this from the mid-80s on, or is this from the advent of downloads in chart figures, or somewhere in between?)
- There are songs in the table with no artist or album, which I assume are just owned by a label until they're assigned to an artist; it might be worth clarifying this situation in the lead (it'd be more valuable as information than, say, what song was a single from which album).
- There's a few instances of refs preceded by an unnecessary space.
- I've never seen the point of alphabetical anchors in a sortable table, but that's just aesthetic on my part really.
- Not sure it's optimal to have "N/A" sort in the midst of real entries; would it combine with {{sort}} to be shunted off to the end? If not, don't worry about it.
- If "BMI" is Broadcast Music, Inc., pipe it.
- Remember that the lead and table are due to date soon; information on the new album should be incorporated as soon as it can be reliably sourced.
- Comment I also question whether it is really necessary at all to indicate which songs were number ones in the US and the UK. Why just those two nations? For example, "Let There Be Love" apparently topped the US Hot Dance Club Songs chart, and "Ooh La La" was number one in South Korea. Wouldn't that make them "number-one singles"? That's just my initial thought about this list, I'll give a fuller review when I have the time. Overall, it seems to look pretty good. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the claim about "Dynamite" by Taio Cruz seems to be based on this source. Although it doesn't specifically say, I think these figures relate to America only, not the whole world, so that should be made clear. Also it seems to relate to "the Nielsen SoundScan era", which is probably not exactly the same thing as "the digital era", whatever that is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This nomination is pushing two months old. Please deal with the comments as soon as possible, or the nomination may be archived. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 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) 10:37, 3 July 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 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]
List of municipalities in Saskatchewan
We are nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Saskatchewan in Canada. It follows the same format of successful nominations for the provinces of Ontario and Manitoba (and |Alberta, currently a Featured List Candidate). We are hoping to ultimately complete a featured topic for all municipalities in Canada. If this nomination and the nomination of Alberta below are successful 4 out of the 13 provinces and territories will be featured lists using this new and rigorous format. Thanks for your input! Mattximus (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to reviewers: A record of our collaboration can be viewed on my talk page. I'll now use this page to further collaborate with Mattximus on this article concurrent with your reviews. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Mattximus: The "Rural municipalities" and "Northern municipalities" sections both should mention the largest and smallest by population like the urban municipality subsections. Could you add this content? Also, please review the comments received on the Alberta nomination from Dudley Miles and The Rambling Man received to date and consider implementing the same suggested changes where/if applicable as I anticipate some of them may emerge here. Hwy43 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Stumbled upon this Municipal System History page which has incorporation dates for urban, rural and northern municipalities. I've added the original incorporation dates for the 24 northern municipalities. Though the current lack of the same for the urbans and rurals should not preclude achievement of FL status (it wasn't a barrier for List of municipalities in Ontario), I think these should be added eventually. The sheer number of urbans and rurals makes this a significant undertaking that could occur after FL achievement in my opinion. That being said, I have contacted the Saskatchewan government to ask if they could provide the PDF tables in Excel format, in the spirit of open data, to help streamline the eventual additions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reply? I could always start plugging away if there is no alternative. Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. Given the time of year, not surprised if there is no reply until the week of January 6-10. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Saskatchewan Municipal Relations "Sorry all I received for posting are the pdf files that are currently up on the site." Drat. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think? Do you see incorporation dates as integral to the list of municipalities in Canada pages? Would you like them to be eventually in all the articles? If so I certainly don't mind helping you input them, but it will take a bit longer than the scope of the featured list review. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, and per the successful outcome of the Ontario FLC review where inclusion wasn't a barrier to promotion, I don't think its necessary to add them before the FL review closes. However, I do think it should be an action item for this article afterwards since the data is immediately available. I'll ask some co-workers if they can convert the PDFs to Excel format to save us some time. Hwy43 (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think? Do you see incorporation dates as integral to the list of municipalities in Canada pages? Would you like them to be eventually in all the articles? If so I certainly don't mind helping you input them, but it will take a bit longer than the scope of the featured list review. Mattximus (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response from Saskatchewan Municipal Relations "Sorry all I received for posting are the pdf files that are currently up on the site." Drat. Hwy43 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet. Given the time of year, not surprised if there is no reply until the week of January 6-10. Hwy43 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reply? I could always start plugging away if there is no alternative. Mattximus (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The lists of urban and rural municipalities are very long with no breaks. Making the name the default field and adding Template:Compact ToC, as was done with Alberta, would make it easier for readers to find a municipality they were interested in.
- Comment is it possible to do a compact TOC that allows links to towns a, b, c, etc, then villages a, b, c, etc? It would be nice to retain the current default sort of cities alpha, then towns alpha, then villages alpha, the resort villages alpha. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You could post a question on the ToC talk page. I am not sure how it would work. I find ToC helpful when searching long tables, but I do not think it is crucial if you want to keep the default sort.
- Comment is it possible to do a compact TOC that allows links to towns a, b, c, etc, then villages a, b, c, etc? It would be nice to retain the current default sort of cities alpha, then towns alpha, then villages alpha, the resort villages alpha. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "A village can be created from an organized hamlet by Saskatchewan's Minister of Municipal Relations by ministerial order via section 51 of The Municipalities Act if it has: been an organized hamlet for three or more years; a population of 100 or more; 50 or more dwellings or businesses; and a taxable assessment base that meets a prescribed minimum." It is not clear from the wording whether it has to meet one of the criteria or all of them.
- I do not understand the third column under urban municipality, rural municipality. How are they related?
- Comment third column advises which rural municipality surrounds the urban municipality. Hwy43 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from AmericanLemming I recently left a note on the talk page of list of municipalities in Manitoba regarding the placement of the table of contents. Since my questions regard all 13 articles of this type (and particularly those which are FLs or FLCs, like this one), I thought I would bring it up here as well. I have two questions:
- 1. Why is the table of contents on the right for this article when almost all other articles have it on the left?
- 2. Why is the table of contents on the right for the lists of municipalities in Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan but on the left for British Columbia (and yes, I know BC was promoted to FL status in 2007)? Shouldn't it be consistent one way or the other?
I'm new to the featured list process, so it's quite possible that list articles are more likely to have the TOC on the right for some reason unknown to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See replies at Talk:List of municipalities in Manitoba#Why is the table of contents on the right?. Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states
"the table of contents should be floated left unless there is a compelling reason to have it on the right.""The table of contents may be floated left or right, but general practice is to have it floated left (the default setting)" I'd appreciate any input any regulars at the featured list candidate process have on the proposed addition. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you think of the TOC placement in List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories? That seems to me to be clearer. If you agree I can make that a standard for all of these lists including this one. Mattximus (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for getting back to you so late; I delisted this discussion from my watch list because I thought my concerns had been addressed (that is, I learned that it's okay to have the TOC on the right). But about your question, I very much prefer having the TOC where it is in the Northwest Territories article. It looks better and isn't stuck between the lead and the first section of the body. Please do change all of the articles to look like that. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Mattximus and AmericanLemming, but it should not go where it is in the Northwest Territories article per #5 at Help:Section#Floating the TOC. Hwy43 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If there was a way to force the floated-right TOC that is stacked next to images to appear precisely after the first paragraph, let's do it. I've been unsuccessful in my previous attempts. Hwy43 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hwy43: Um, I'm a little confused. #5 states "However, the floating TOC should in most cases follow at least the first paragraph of article text." (emphasis mine) That means in some cases you can have it be otherwise, such as here. I'm inferring that you personally prefer to have it follow at least the first paragraph of article text? Because the guideline doesn't say that it always has to follow at least the first paragraph of article text. Anyway, I'm sure you have you reasons for wanting to have the TOC right-floated and sandwiched right between the lead and the first paragraph of the body, and I am willing to respect your preferences. You've spent a lot more time working on these articles than me, anyway. :)
- We could ask around at the help desk or the village pump about your proposed solution, though. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- AmericanLemming, actually, where Mattximus put it is exactly my preference (with the dead white space resolved between the two adjacent images, which can be resolved). However, it is my interpretation that #5's "should in most cases" is the alternative to #2's "should be placed at the end of the lead section of the text". #2 goes on to say "Users of screen readers do not expect any text between the TOC and the first heading, and having no text above the TOC is confusing." That last bit is key here. My preference is at the top, but we are constrained by these guidelines. Trying to put it after the first paragraph seems to be the best compromise between the end of the lead and before any text. Hwy43 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I've proposed adding a guideline on the position of TOCs on the MoS's talk page; the proposed addition currently states
Continuation of TOC positioning discussion from above
I have started my reply on a new line because, when you need eight colons to indent your reply, it's time to start over. Anyway, I have to agree with you, Hwy43, that putting it immediately after the first paragraph in the lead would be preferable, considering guideline #2. As such, I have asked around at the Help desk: Placing the TOC immediately after the first paragraph in the lead. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Though I have to say I agree with Hwy43 and AmericanLemming about placing the Table of Contents immediately after the first paragraph in the lede, on the left. Great job overall by Mattximus and Hwy43, — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and please change title of sect Notes to Footnotes. Notes is for citations, Footnotes is for commentary about main article body text. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Cirt. I have reviewed WP:FOOTNOTES and it appears it is "Notes" per WP:REFGROUP as the footnotes in question here are clarifications of content. Hwy43 (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support a reasonable read through revealed no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 5 February 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) 09:46, 6 February 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.
List of AO-rated video games
- Nominator(s): ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a particularly notable subject; in line with the NC-17, its interesting to see that relatively few "mainstream" games have ever dared to receive an AO rating, and I bet you most people don't even realize there's something higher than M! I did a lot of cleanup lately, adding some more backstories, filling out references, adding a lead, etc. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments by Mattximus (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too impressed with the list itself. The note section only has a few notes, most have a dash, one is blank. Maybe a year column would benefit? What is the difference between "PC", "Windows", and "Windows PC"; all three are under that one column. You have a cancelled game, a game that was re-rated, there seems to be no real criteria for inclusion here. I'm confused.
- These are all video games that were rated AO by the ESRB; how can the criteria for inclusion be any clearer? And I fixed up those formatting issues. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I'd mention when the ESRB started, probably at the end of the first paragraph.
- Might also be worth mentioning its equivalents in other countries, or that it's like NC-17, if you can find sources.
- "was given the AO rating for its violent content, so much so that when its publisher" - 'so much so' what? It was rated so much? Sentence needs reworking.
- Since the platform column is sortable, every instance of each term should be linked.
- I'd add a release date (or at least release year) column, as well as a developer column.
- You seem to have notes only on the non-sexual games- any way to get notes for the others, or would they all just be "digital nudity and explicit sex"?
- The Joy of Sex should sort under J, not T.
- If you add notes to the other games, you can drop the sorting on the notes column, since the result is arbitrary.
--PresN 05:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed up the Thrill Kill mention, but I can't seem to find release years for those remaining AO games that are otherwise unremarkable and lacking notes (aside from Lula 3D; which I also got a chance to add to List of video games notable for negative reception as well). This table is sourced directly from the ESRB pages, which don't distinctly list developers or release years. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...:
- Tables need to comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes.
- Do we have any more info about the games? Usually lists of video games include title, developer, publisher, and year. I'm not pushy about needing a developer column since we have the publisher list, but I think a column with year of release would be helpful and necessary to make this a complete list. I can see PresN noted this, but I would say it's necessary to meet criteria 3a of WP:WIAFL. You may want to try using IGN or Allgame to fill in some of the information on some of these games.
- Instead of having a ref next to the game title, it might be better to place it in a separate column since there are individual references for each title here and not one overarching reference. See List of Sega 32X games for a suggestion on how this might be accomplished, and would neaten up the title field.
- Though not necessary, you may want to place {{portal}} in the See also section to add a link to the Video games Portal, which may be helpful for readers.
- There's an extra ] next to the word Windows in the last paragraph of the lead.
Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating the need for release dates, or at least release years, especially for the blacklinked items. If the only source used does not contain them then it is not an adequate source for an FL, we'll need more. --Golbez (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - no response from nominator or edits to article for a month regarding adding developer or release date to table; that you would have to find another source beyond the ESRB for those is not a valid excuse. --PresN 19:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is certainly useful, but valid concerns have indeed been raised above. I think the refs from the Title column should be moved instead to the Notes column, for uniformity with other FL quality list pages I've come across. Also, I've left a helpful reminder note about this ongoing discussion page at user talk for ViperSnake151. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I have to agree with Red Phoenix here about 3a. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:10, 5 February 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) 09:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]
World Fantasy Award for Best Novella
You know what this place needs? If you said "more nominations of speculative fiction award lists", you're right! To that end, here's the list for the World Fantasy Award for Best Novella, the award for those stories in that awkward length where they're a bit too long to be short stories but still too short to generally get published on their own, as presented by the biggest player in the Fantasy-specific literary awards. Like always, the list is based off of the dozens of Hugo, Nebula, etc. award lists I've pushed through here in the last few years, with specific attention paid to the comments received at the Novel category nomination from a month ago. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - several of the authors have photos in their articles, could some of these not be added to make the list a bit more visually interesting........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—
|
Another great article from PresN, consistent with his other award lists; have just found a few very minor issues, included below:
- the next-most nominations without winning is five by Kim Newman. -- not a fan of this wording, suggest a re-write
- Per WP:ALSO, why is World Fantasy Convention repeated in the See also section? Ruby 2010/2013 17:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- published in English or translated into English. - aren't these both, technically, published in English?
- Why are your novellas in quotes? WP:ITALICS puts "books" (novellas are often published stand-alone, so they count) in italics, whereas short stories are in quotes.
- and K. J. Parker, who won both times they were nominated. - what's with the singular "they"? Is Parker's gender unknown? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was trying to be explicit that the work doesn't have to be originally written in English, just translated and published in that language in the prior year. Remove, though.
- If you notice, some of them are in quotes and some of them are italicized- this corresponds to if the novella, in its original incarnation, was published by itself or as a part of a larger work. This, in turn, matches up with the publisher/publication column- for example, Night Moves is italicized, and the publisher is listed as Axolotl Press, but "The River of Night's Dreaming" is in quotes, and the publication listed is Whispers III (Doubleday).
- That's an interesting way of approaching it. Has any consensus been formally established? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To my knowledge, no- the MOS doesn't get any more specific about it, and WP:NOVELS doesn't have any guidelines either. That said, as far as I can tell it's the standard way of dealing with them- stand-alone works get italics, works that are a part of a longer work get quotes. After all, if it's in an anthology a novella is just a long short story, but if it's published on its own it's just a short book. Only awards try to give it a word-count definition. --PresN 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First line of K. J. Parker's wikipedia page- "K. J. Parker is an author of fantasy fiction. The name is a pseudonym and the writer's true identity has never been revealed." --PresN 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose: solid list, and a congratulations to PresN for his work here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is impressive. The sourcing is detailed and helpful for each entry. This list page will surely become an invaluable resource in the future for researchers on the specific topic of World Fantasy Award but also hopefully as a model for participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and Wikipedia:WikiProject Science Fiction. — Cirt (talk) 04:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 5 February 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) 09:46, 6 February 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 not promoted by Crisco 1492 11:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC) [12].
Jared Leto filmography
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have recently completely updated and improved the article according to WP:FILMOGRAPHY. Earthh (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's not a single reference outside the lead. That means that there's nothing to support any of the information in any of the lists. Have a look at List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan for an FLC on a similar topic to see how the information is supported by reliable sources. That's why there is a column provided for sources in the example at WP:FILMOGRAPHY. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list you cited is not a filmography. This article meets the criteria at WP:FILMOGRAPHY; if you read it, the Source column is an optional field that is to be used when a work may be obscure or difficult to confirm. A film in which an actor starred does not need to be sourced. Take a look at other featured lists such as Clint Eastwood filmography, Christopher Walken filmography, Robert Bathurst filmography or Vittorio Storaro filmography; they do not need sources for films they starred or directed, unless it is a work obscure or difficult to confirm.--Earthh (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Terry-Thomas on screen, radio, stage and record, David Niven on screen, stage, radio, record and in print and Hattie Jacques on stage, radio, screen and record, all of which are filmographies and all of which carry citations that support the information. These are all recent FLs, whereas the ones you list are between 2008 and 2010 and things have changed since those days: we now prefer that all information is supported by reliable sources. There is absolutely nothing in WP:FILMOGRAPHY that says we don't need to support information that appears in the body. - SchroCat (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- article is essentially unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see some valiant effort on improving sourcing throughout the entire article has been made by Earthh after the above comments were made by SchroCat and ChrisTheDude. See changes made by Earthh, at DIFF. Also, as a side observation, no idea why this particular page seems to be the subject of incoming vandalism from apparent odd user accounts and IPs. I think I'll hold back from commenting further here until SchroCat and ChrisTheDude have had another chance to reevaluate the page since the improvements made by Earthh. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Humblest apologies, I completely forgot that I'd commented here. I'll try and have another look over it in the next few days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, ChrisTheDude, keep us posted. And Earthh, if I myself also forget to revisit, feel free to remind me with a ping or post to my user talk page. — Cirt (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Humblest apologies, I completely forgot that I'd commented here. I'll try and have another look over it in the next few days..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the current ref 23 (used in the TV table) does not support the specific episodes of "Camp Wilder", "My So-Called Life" or "Almost Home" that he was in. It also seems to have a couple of roles not listed here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: This nomination has been archived. It may take several days for the bot to pass through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 8 February 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 Hahc21 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by Herschelle Gibbs
Herschelle Gibbs is among the greatest ODI players of all-time. With 21 ODI centuries, he leads his countrymen and has played many match-winning innings in both Tests as well as ODIs. Given my current FLC has gained substantial support with most of the remaining concerns being addressed, I guess this nomination is permissible —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - there were a few very minor issues, but I fixed them myself as it took less time than explaining them here :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comment
- Is there a reason why the one-day list doesn't sort on the "No." column, but does on the test column? - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: another very nice piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 12:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments' —
|
Support good work. Zia Khan 12:26, 26 December 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 SchroCat 17:32, 14 January 2014 [14].
List of Adventure Time episodes
Second time is the charm. I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the requirements. Modeled after List of Regular Show episodes and List of The X-Files episodes, this list features all of the episodes of Adventure Time that have aired, complete with references for production codes and Nielsen Ratings (where available). In addition, the article features a lede that has been tailored to give a brief summary of the article, as well as other information about the series. I feel it is ready for this promotion.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have no problem. Blurred Lines 20:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the list satisfy 3a if the series is still ongoing? This was an issue I've faced before. Aside from that, why are there missing viewership numbers? DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have actively been updating this list since November of 2012. While there is a slim chance I would have to step down, I think there are other editors out there who would update the list as the show went on. Besides, List of Regular Show episodes was promoted, and while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid argument, I think its a good analog to show that it can be promoted. Also, the reason there is missing viewership numbers is simply because they are missing; no site has posted them, so unfortunately, they can't be added. It's sad, but what can you do?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll try and make time to look over the list later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Ruby2010 (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments -- this list is looking really good; just generated a few concerns below:
|
Resolved comments from Paper Luigi (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - It's a very well-made list.
|
- I now support the nomination. Paper Luigi T • C 18:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Happy to offer some thoughts. List is pretty solid and well-done; just a few minor quips.
|
- Support. Great job! Holiday56 (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have also no problem with that since the main article looks FA ready. JJ98 (Talk) 12:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Support It took long to go through the sources and to try and find those missing numbers. Looks like they don't exist. I suggest using | deadurl=no where necessary. Also, TV MSN has been proven to be unreliable in the past. This is my only issue. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clear any confusion, there aren't any dead urls present. TV by the Numbers simply never published the numbers to begin with, so we don't know what they are/were. Although I'm not sure why or how MSN would be considered unreliable.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ? | deadurl=no would make the main link the live site instead of the archive. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. If I have time, I'll add that. There's a lot of them.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the MSN TV discussion. There was an old discussion relating List of Bleach episodes airdates at MSN TV dates which were completely contradicting to reliable sources. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:22, 12 January 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) 17:42, 14 January 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 not promoted by SchroCat 10:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC) [15].[reply]
List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches
- Nominator(s): --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since I've nominated an FLC! More than two years! It's great to finally be able to edit again. Anyways, back to the process. I am nominating this list because it first off meets the WIAFL, and is consistent with other NBA head coaches lists. I am also nominating this for FL because I need to finish what I started, and actually complete the NBA head coaches topic so that I can nominate that for FT. If there has been changes to the process or if there is anything I need to be updated on, please let me know. Thanks in advance! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater
Resolved comments from Rejectwater |
---|
*Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
|
- Kevin McHale is listed twice, once for each term. Negates the usefulness of a sortable table.
- I used the MLB managers lists format and created a separate section just for head coaches with multiple tenures. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you did that. It's redundant and unneccessary. Why not just list McHale in the main table on one line? Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That will inhibit the readers to clearly see the chronology of the position. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand why you did that. It's redundant and unneccessary. Why not just list McHale in the main table on one line? Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I used the MLB managers lists format and created a separate section just for head coaches with multiple tenures. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening paragraph of the lead reads like a list of trivia. Should focus on the topic at hand.
- I rewrote some of the lead. Sorry to be a bummer, but there really isn't much I can add onto the lead. I made the lead look less trivial, but other than that, nothing much has changed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the lead is appropriate to the article (I wouldn't object to it being longer, and believe it could be, but I think it is adequate in size). The content of much of the first paragraph, however, is outside the scope. Delete everything from "The team was one of two..." through "David Kahn is their general manager." Replace it with a description of what a Minnesota Timberwolves coach is and what they are responsible for. See WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find a suitable definition of a head coach for the article. The description of the position varies across mediums. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of the lead is appropriate to the article (I wouldn't object to it being longer, and believe it could be, but I think it is adequate in size). The content of much of the first paragraph, however, is outside the scope. Delete everything from "The team was one of two..." through "David Kahn is their general manager." Replace it with a description of what a Minnesota Timberwolves coach is and what they are responsible for. See WP:LEAD: "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Rejectwater (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote some of the lead. Sorry to be a bummer, but there really isn't much I can add onto the lead. I made the lead look less trivial, but other than that, nothing much has changed. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2013 (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) 10:35, 3 July 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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]
List of Pune Warriors India cricketers
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dashes in batting average should sort at the bottom, at least for the cases when the player has not batted.
- It is already like that.
- Do you want them to sort at bottom while in ascending order or while in descending order? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already like that.
- The bowling average sorts completely wrong, the 6.00 and 9.00 sort as 60.00 and 90.00. Done
- Why does batting average use emdashes, when the rest use endashes? Done Harrias talk 14:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 18:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments (re-visit)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 06:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—on prose only,
Zia Khan 01:01, 24 December 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 Crisco 1492 13:48, February 2, 2014 [17].
List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes
Hello everyone. I am nominating this article for featured list. I have redeveloped this article based on current and previous featured episode lists. Any comments that will help the list more are welcome. Thanks in advance. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous(talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - I'm surprised that it's been 50 days and I've been the only person to support this! I'm having trouble as well on trying to get people to comment or support my FLC, so if you have time on your hands, please, head over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches/archive1 and do the same for me! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - A few comments before I can support
|
- Support - outstanding issues are not enough for me to oppose over. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I will take a closer look later. For now, I suggest you split the airdate table and media release. It is stretching the page pretty badly on higher zooms. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Tentative support I don't see any glaring issues. So it's a support unless someone points out a fatal flaw. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:13, 28 January 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 00:07, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [18]].[reply]
Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year
- Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (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. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard magazine to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why was the first FL nomination closed? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comments: There are several red links in this list. If there is no article to the list, then it should not be linked.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed and updated with 2014 nominees. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that red links should not be linked? According to WP:RED, red links encourage creation of articles. Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 and Premio Lo Nuestro 2014 should be linked and created. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's inconsistent in the Year column now of what is linked: the year or the order. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
- Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
- I am specifically talking about WP:DTAB when it comes to WP:ACCESS. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still do not understand what do you mean, can you give me an example? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Descriptions of what the award winners are wearing is not in context with the article. For example, the alt text of the Isabel Pantoja image should only be "Isabel Pantoja performing". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- América Sierra is not sorted properly.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Surprised "Lo Nuestro Award" is not linked in the prose in the lead somewhere.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "award" is used three times in the opening two sentences, twice in the first, a little repetitive.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nominees and winners were originally selected by a voting poll " where are the nominees for 1989, 1990 and 1994? And what does "for the majority of the years awarded" mean? The info isn't available? There were no nominees?"
- We do not have the references for the nominees, I even send emails to Univision without any response. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: The good news is that we now have the complete nominations thanks John M Baker and User:Gamaliel from the Resource Exchange for providing the article with the nominations that were other wise paywalled. Erick (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the present time" see WP:ASOF.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "by the audience through an online survey" surely just "through an online survey" or are only the "audience" allowed to vote?
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tierra de Nadie " is a dablink.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Check all non-English-language refs have a language parameter, e.g. ref 3 should have Spanish somewhere in it.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Status
- Lead
- "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American network Univision." → "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American television network Univision at the Lo Nuestro Awards."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was first awarded in 1989 and has been given annually since." → This is repetitive using "annually" again. Suggest removing this sentence and just adding in 1989 to this sentence "The award was first presented to Desde Andalucía by Spanish singer Isabel Pantoja.".
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey." → "However, since 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "for the most awards, winning on three occasions each" → "for the most wins, with three each"
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively for Aries (1994) and Segundo Romance (1995), with both earning also the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance." → "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively in 1994 for Aries and in 1995 for Segundo Romance; both albums also earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively, and both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance with Maná receiving the award." → "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year accolade was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively. Both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance, with Maná receiving the award."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supernatural by Mexican-American band Santana also won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year." → Why exactly is this mentioned in the lead? It's the only mention of the album in the lead.
- It is mentioned in the lead because the Grammy Award for Album of the Year is one of the most important music award, and Supernatural is the only "Latin" album that received the accolade along with the Lo Nuestro Award. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this? In the preceding sentence "Spanish band La 5ª Estación, and Mexican groups Camila, Maná, Pandora, RBD, and Sin Bandera are the only musical ensembles to receive the accolade." You can throw in Santana throw and mention the Grammy Album of the Year accolade like saying "the latter group received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year" or something like that. Erick (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Status (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables
- I'm not the biggest fan of the "Winners and nominees" table. Is there any particular reason why this style was chosen? I've seen many different ways to do these sorts of tables, and I like Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album the most.
- I think this table is easier to navigate. I also took several LGA list to FL status, with another template, but for this award I tried something different. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very convinced on why the "Multiple wins/nominations" table is needed.
- Most award related lists include the wins and nominations table, that's the main reason to have it here. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Status (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- Some external links that need to be corrected.
- If 2013 and 2014 don't have their own articles, I don't think that need to be redlinked in the table.
- Maybe instead of "Multiple wins/nominations", this title could be reworked as "Multiple wins and nominations"?
And that is pretty much it, since the list is already in very good shape. I trust that you will address my comments as necessary, and am happy in giving my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not the table I'd use but it works, so I won't be picky about it. Everything else looks good. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Oh, there seems to be a dead link. Other than that, everything looks all right. You guys have done an excellent job finding the sources. – DivaKnockouts 12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind review, we already replaced that link. Cheers! Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you do realise that this currently isn't listed at FLC at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly did not know. Erick (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Blasted Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 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 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [19].[reply]
Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season
- Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Pacific hurricane season featured above-average activity, but minimal impact and fatalities (fortunately). I have significantly improved the status of the article and feel that it now meets the criteria to be recognized as a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dudley Miles 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Dudley Miles
Comments by Dudley Miles A good list. I have a few minor points.
|
- Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only one concern, which is that of referencing: in the lede, damage from Bud and Carlotta is mentioned, yet neither is referenced. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the article. Nice one as usual, TAWX. Cloudchased (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems comparable to other featured timelines. Only one point of concern- "East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the central Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W to the International Date Line" - so the central Pacific is located entirely inside the East Pacific? Looks good besides that. --PresN 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That should say west, not east. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one concern: what's with repeating "operationally" in the third paragraph (same sentence even)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments some minor technical details...
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is most educational and encyclopedic. It is meticulously sourced throughout to appropriate citations. My only minor quibble is the title Notes for that subsection: Notes usually refers to Harvard Citations followed by a References section with the full Citations -- this type of section should be called Footnotes. Great job overall by TropicalAnalystwx13, — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 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) 10:42, 5 February 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [20].[reply]
List of AFL debuts in 2008
I am nominating this for featured list status because not only do I believe it meets the criteria, but would also provide a platform to expand the ability for a greater featured content presence for Australian rules football articles (currently out of over 11,000 pages we have only four FAs and one FL). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated as I have never gone through this process before. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Why are AFL debuts important, and why does there have to be a list about them?
- Explain to readers that are not familiar with Australian rules football what a "debut round" is.
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:11, 9 January 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:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [21].[reply]
List of tallest residential buildings in the world
- Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the article has been substantially cited with reliable sources and is an interesting and informative article. A lot of work from major contributors has been done on this list. This article has been peer reviewed twice and all listed concerns, comments and suggestions has been addressed accordingly. This list is a former candidate of FL, however not promoted, but i have reshaped this article according to the criteria of FL and i think that this time it should be promoted to the status of FL.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find evidence of the Mubarak Center actually being under construction. Google sources say it's "pending", and there are pictures of a hole in the ground. I believe in the wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and would be reluctant to include anything that is speculative of a future event, such as pending/on hold/approved/planned buildings. Under construction is even border line but at least it's something physical to report on. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, i have removed Mubarak Centre, as its not on-hold. However the other one Pentominium is on-hold since its construction has been stopped at level 24 and sources can easily been found regarding its status, and its pertinent to mention about Pentominium here as its supertall skyscraper and planned to be 516 meters tall.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Slap a "The" in front of Council in the first sentence of both the first and second paragraphs.
- Done
- "residential skyscrapers in the world.,[3][4]" - drop the period
- Done
- "Tallest Block in the world" - you capitalize Block but not world both times you use this- either do full title capitalization or capitalize none of it.
- Done
- Also put a "the" in from of tallest in the first image caption
- Done
- There are several facts in History that you don't have references for
- Done
- "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest residential building in the world and rises" - tense, both verbs
- Done
- You define what the CTBUH is in the Ranking section, but not in the lead- that first sentence there should really be the first sentence of the lead, rather than just jumping in headfirst
- Done
- In the second paragraph of Ranking, you throw in an opening single quote for a quotation, but never close it. If it's not a quote, remove it, if it is, use "quote marks".
- Done removed quote mark, as it is not a quote.
- Several buildings are sorting by "The"; they should not. See the {{sort}} template to fix it.
- I didn't got your this point ? When i sort building they are sorted in "Alphabetical order". How they are sorting by "The" ?
- Done I have used the template, that you have given to fix it !
- The notes column should not be sortable
- Is there any way to remove the sort option from existing table ? Because i have to change whole three tables of article, that requires an exhaustive working and time.
- Done I have make section of "Notes" unsortable.
- Since you can sort the list, every instance of e.g. a city should be linked in the table, not just the "first" one, since that changes, just like how you do the country.
- Done
- The same problems apply to other three tables
- Done
- Dream Dubai Marina is missing a space before the slash in the year started / end column
- Done
- In History, you say that The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2 were completed in 2000, but your timeline table says they weren't the tallest until 2001
- Done completion date of Belcher's Tower 1 and 2 was 2000, after conforming it from CTBUH.
- You never actually state that they didn't start ranking until 2001; I would expect to see that in the lead
- Done for the reason above mentioned.
- "List of cities with most skyscrapers" in the see also section is redirecting, to its grammatically correct version
- Done
- Link Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in your references.
- Done
- --PresN 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All short comings highlighted by PresN have been rectified accordingly. Please suggest a way forward. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still numerous grammatical errors:
- "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, defines" - no comma needed, and place "(CTBUH)" after the name since you use the acronym going forward
- "formed in 1969, decides which" - "1969 that decides"
- "It maintains a list of the 100 tallest completed residential buildings in the world" - again, it hasn't always done this, it has only done this since 2000 - "It has maintained a list[...]since 2000".
- "which rises at 392 metres (1,286 ft) in Dubai it was also completed in 2012" - rises shouldn't be used that way for a static building, and you need either a period or semicolon after Dubai.
- "The third tallest residential skyscraper is Elite Residence, which rises" - again, buildings don't rise, they stand, since they don't move.
- "The Marina Torch which rises" - again
- You list the completion year of the first two, but not the positions 3-5.
- "Skyscraper database of The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat reveals that, more" - "The skyscraper database", you can use the acronym since you already used it once, and you don't need that comma.
- "more than 100 residential buildings are under construction" - rather more than that, I think you mean residential skyscrapers
- "World One in Mumbai, India set to rise" - comma after India
- " Saudi Arabia with planned height" - "with a planned height"
- "New York City, United States set to rise" - comma after States
- "release issued by Emporis Corporation" - just Emporis
- "because of a number of high-rise" - "the" number
- "is on hold since May 2011" - "has been on hold since"
- "The first residential skyscrapers were The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2" - were they the first, or just the first since CTBUH started keeping track? Also, the whole sentence is a run-on.
- "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest" - "became"
- The second paragraph of History makes no sense- the stats you quote in the first part of the sentence have nothing to do with the second part of the sentence.
- You also shouldn't have a single-sentence paragraph. If you combine the two paragraphs, you're left with a single=paragraph section; consider moving some information out of the lead and into this section, or moving this section into somewhere else.
- The first sentence in Ranking criteria and alternatives is out of place in the section- it has nothing to do with what follows.
- I really should just oppose this- even after "fixing" my earlier issues, the article is riddled with grammatical problems and there's no coherent flow throughout the text part of the list at all. It's got good tables, and nice pictures, but you need to get a copy-editor; it's really noticeable that English is not your first language, since you mess up articles and commas pretty consistently. --PresN 02:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done All grammatical mistakes have been rectified. And i have tried my best to improve article's grammatical mistakes.
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 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:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 15 January 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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [22].[reply]
List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast members
The article is a follow up to the previously promoted List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members. I recently changed the format of the DS9 article in line with changes another editor made to the TNG one, and as seen on other FLs such as List of Grey's Anatomy cast members. The DS9 article is fully cited to reliable sources. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very good formatting and tabulation, appropriately referenced throughout, one fair use image used with appropriate fair use rationale given on image page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nice and solid, like the TNG list. A few comments:
- In footnote 7, link io9, and mark it as the work, with Gawker Media as the publisher.
- In footnote 28, unlink tor.com, set it as the work, and put Tor Books as the publisher.
- In the references, link Pocket Books.
- Consider archiving your online references with a tool like web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that website drift/decay doesn't wipe out your cited information in the future. --PresN 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very nice list. Prose, formatting, referencing, images (well, image) all check out. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 8 January 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 15:19, 20 January 2014 [23].
List of Nippon Professional Baseball players to hit for the cycle
When User:Killervogel5 started updating the article "Hitting for the cycle" he wanted to make it more comprehensive beyond just MLB. To help him out I put together a list of NPB cycles. The list was always in good shape but I wasn't able to find a reliable source for the cycle list so I never pursued a FL. I was finally able to find one though so I cleaned it up a bit and put finishing touches on the list. I think it looks good now. Let me know what you think! --TorsodogTalk 06:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just happened to come back to WT:MLB today totally by chance and I'm so happy to hear that you finally got this nominated! Please let me know if and when it passes - I'll come back for a command performance just to get the cycle to featured topic. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] More comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Final comment –
|
- Support – Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolves comments from K. Annoyomous |
---|
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - If you ever have time, it would be great if you create articles for all of the players, especially the Hall of Famers. Other than that, great job on the list, and I look forward to seeing more from you! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nicely done. Only a few comments, which isn't enough for me to oppose.
- In the key- "Player recorded a natural cycle" - this sounds awkward to my ears- "Denotes a natural cycle"?
- The italic text thing in the Cycles by franchise section seems like it would run afoul of WP:ACCESS - is it even necessary, given that you give the active dates of the franchise?
- Refs 7,8,11,12,13 are missing the "Kyodo News" publisher bit that you include in 14,15,16
- Consider archiving your online references via a service like web.archive.org or webcitation.org- online refs have a nasty tendency to move, change, or get deleted years later, leaving the list with dead references.
- --PresN 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed! However refs 8, 11, 12 and 13 aren't actually from "Kyodo News" articles. It isn't the publisher of The Japan Times, they are a Japanese news agency similar to the Associated Press. The Japan Times runs articles from them time to time. Should I include the actual publisher of The Japan Times, which is The Japan Times LTD, to alleviate the confusion or is that unnecessary? --TorsodogTalk 21:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Fumio Fujimura with the Osaka Tigers and Hiromi Matsunaga with the Hankyu/Orix Braves, both with two. - when?
- I specifically left those dates out as to not clog up the lead with more and more dates. I figured they are in the table so why throw 4 more long dates into the mix if I didn't have to. Thoughts?
- That season also saw the only instance of cycles occurring on the same day: on July 1, hit by Atsunori Inaba of the Yakult Swallows and Arihito Muramatsu of the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks. - same game or different game?
- Good point! Different games. I will change to specify.
- Are the Japanese names presented in Western order (Given, Family) or traditional order (Family, Given)? A note might be worth making. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Western order. I'll look into this and see what kind of template notes are available.
- Any hall of famers? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 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) 15:40, 20 January 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 14:35, 15 January 2014 [24].
List of Sega CD games
- Nominator(s): Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spurred on by the successful promotion of List of Sega 32X games a few months ago, I've taken on another Sega Genesis add-on games list as I push forward for a Sega fourth-generation featured topic. This one was much harder, as the Sega CD games library is at least five times as large as the 32X library, and because of the large number of Japanese-only releases, doing an individual game page for each item on this list would be next to impossible. Thankfully, in addition to Allgame's awesome list of North American and PAL releases, Sega of Japan has a pair of master lists (in Japanese, no less) for this console that made sourcing this list possible. With Sega CD now a GA, having an accompanying FL of its games would be an excellent feat, and during the course of this candidacy, of which I believe the list is in excellent condition and ready for promotion after all of my hard work into it, I'll do whatever it takes to make that happen. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by LightLowemon
- Definitely needs a link to Sega CD somewhere in there
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...released in Europe and other regions... - how about released in PAL regions
- The first paragraph is almost an exact cut and paste of the lead from the Sega CD article, not sure if there are any rules against this though, but it seems to me that it's a bit cheap, and the information doesn't actually discuss the games as much as the unit. In theory while they should be similar, I don't think they should be the exact same.
- A large part of that would be because I wrote the lead to Sega CD, and decided to build this list off of that for consistency. If there are specific changes to be recommended, I will implement them, but I believe it's important to introduce the topic of what the Sega CD is as a unit in order to understand more about its game library and the topic of this list. It's also similar to what I've done in List of Sega 32X games, another FL. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In early 1991, Sega announced the Mega-CD for release in Japan in late 1991, North America (as the Sega CD) in 1992, and in Europe in 1993. You've already mentioned this not two sentences earlier.
- Oops... resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sega of Japan, partnering with JVC... I don't think this whole sentence is really necessary, as it relates solely to the console and not the games.
- It relates to the console, but would not a short understanding of the console be helpful to understanding this list? I don't really see this as a negative, personally, but if consensus disagrees, I'll remove it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... the expansion only sold as many as 2.7 million units worldwide[2] and was often criticized for its severe hardware limitations.[3] - Reference 3 says it sold 6 million and nothing about its hardware limitations, and in fact few references even talk about the severe hardware limitations, stating the issue was in the game library and the system didn't add anything to the user experience, this may have been due to the hardware limitations, but no where says that. One reference even complements it as "solid tech", the worst I could find was comments on poor FMV handling and colour limitations.
- Reference 3's sales number of 6 million has been shown systematically to be an inaccurate number. We've discussed the numbers of several sales figure postings for Sega's 16-bit era at Talk:Sega Genesis, and in particular I've worked with Indrian on ensuring that these numbers are accurately sourced. In this case, the existence of a 2.7 million number by the end of 1994, sourced to Sega itself by way of Man!ac Magazine, a German publication, shows that the GamePro number cannot be accurate. I'll remove the bit on the "hardware limitations", it's cited in some other material but perhaps console criticism is too much console criticism to maintain a focused list lead. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Need a link to the 32X in the second paragraph.
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecco The Dolphin -> Ecco the Dolphin
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference for criticising the lack of depth of game library.
- Again, accidental miss, but I thought it was linked. IGN article will be linked here. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the first paragraph the second and third are basically word for word the Sega CD section under Game Library, except for The Sega CD contains a large library of over 140 titles.
- See my reasoning above about the lead; I pretty much rewrote the entire Sega CD article a while ago before it attained GA status. If specific changes need to be made, I can make them as need be.
- Personally, I don't find the table very sort friendly as far as regions go, I know it's a similar style as to the other featured lists, but I'd rather something similar to List of PlayStation 3 games where each region had its own sorting. At the moment if I wanted to look for games in Japan, I have games that were released in Japan only, scroll down to NA JP, scroll down further to NA PAL JP and if there were any that were PAL JP only I'd have to scroll down again.--Lightlowemon (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting suggestion. I had not had to do that with List of Sega 32X games, but that was a much shorter list. I'll look into options for this. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Lightlowemon. I'm sure you're helping to make this a stronger list through such feedback. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm not ready to give a vote until other editors weigh in, I'm only a new voter so I'd like to see what others think about the article, and specifically the lead. --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. I'm still always glad to have some honest feedback, and could always use more. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
- I would also like to see the three regions broken out into their own columns, kind of like List of Square Enix mobile games (I know that list is a bit shorter) - the way it is now, the sorting on the regions column doesn't really work, because you can't sort by all games released in NA, since ones where it was also released in JP don't sort with ones that weren't.
- Now that's a pretty neat way to do it; I very much like that format. It may take a little while; there are over 200 entries to correct for that, but I can make that happen. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Complete, using the example you provided. Thanks Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " the expansion only sold as many as 2.7 million units worldwide" - "as many as" sounds weird to me here, since it's usually used in a positive way but it's used negatively here. Maybe "up to 2.7" or "a maximum of 2.7" or "at most 2.7" instead?
- Done - It actually sold 2.7 million by the end of 1994, so I've rephrased it as such and with a neutral tone. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "were a number of FMV games" - should be Full Motion Video (FMV) games the first time you use it, or perhaps just use and link Interactive movie instead.
- Done - Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links to compact disc|audio CDs and central processing unit in the lead are redirecting.
- Done - Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A bunch of game titles/developers are redirecting; while some seem intentional, others don't (like Bari-arm) so check them.
Curious, but not surprising. Is there a bot that can do this upon request? I can weed it all out if need be, but I would think there'd be an automated bot that could make such corrections. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I went through and did the games manually. Developers would take some time. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This script might help you out for this, colour codes them. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should've figured that in some way, Anomie would inadvertently help me out again on another Sega article. Thanks, Lightlowemon. I'm sure that'll be a very helpful too, especially when I move on to List of Sega Genesis games. Over 900 titles there... yikes. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Thanks, that made correcting those redirects surprisingly easy. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you get any more details on reference 2, like ISSN or author?
- Most I've really got is that it's a staff article and that it's in German; I'll see if I can throw some of that in. In terms of evaluating it for reliability, Man!ac is a past labeling of M! Games, an active video game publication in Germany. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider archiving your references via web.archive.org or webcitation.org- while the sites themselves are unlikely to disappear completely, there's nothing stopping them from changing information and messing up the article- GameSpot reformatted all their video game pages/links just last month without leaving behind redirects or keeping all the information, and there's nothing stopping IGN/1UP.com from doing the same.
- Thanks, I'll consider it. I know Sega's changed their sites around a little bit, so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility they might. I'll probably work on this last, though, just so I can focus on the important ones to this FAC first, and then do the archiving.
- Looks good, switching to support. Minor redirects and unarchived refs aren't criteria that would block my support. One follow-up point though- now that it's just "2.7 million units as of the end of 1994", the "While" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't make much sense- you're not contrasting that it was known for a couple games with the amount it sold, you're just presenting two facts. --PresN 19:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll weigh in on this during this weekend.--SexyKick 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the first reviewer that the lead probably discusses the console itself at length a bit more than I'd like. Why do I need to know that Sega of Japan didn't share with Sega of America during the development?
- Removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a total game count anywhere. Ideally I'd like a total count for all three regions as well as the world.
- Personally I disagree with individual regions as being excessive, but I don't see anything wrong with a WP:CALC addition of a total number of releases. I'll see if I can slip that in. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The 32 colors comment isn't marked to be incorrect like in the Sega CD article.
- Removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a * could be placed next to games that also came out on the Sega Genesis? I'm not sure on this one.
- Might be excessive in my opinion; this is, after all, a list of Sega CD titles, and even the Genesis "ports" had differences from their counterparts. We don't list console releases on one system that also were released on a specific other (note: yes, I'm aware the Sega CD is an add-on and not a stand-alone console). Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference review since there aren't a ton of these, I went through their formatting and found it to be consistent. I've read through the entirety of most of them, and skimmed the one or two I hadn't read. I find all referenced information accurately cross checks. Very good.--SexyKick 10:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, SexyKick. Appreciate your feedback, as always. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportYou're very welcome, and I somewhat agree with the other things potentially being excessive. They were just the things I felt interested in that weren't there. Since the 32X ports of Sega CD games were noted, I thought it might be nice if I could know which got improvements. I really like the improvements in 3 Ninjas, and Ecco the Dolphin, but they blow me away in Batman Returns. So I like seeking out the titles that were on both, but I do see the potential excessiveness.--SexyKick 05:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one slight difference between this and 32X, and that's that the 32X ports required the Sega CD as well and weren't just ports outright. So, in essence, those listed there were 32X and CD games combined into one. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (please note that I am not reviewing in my capacity as delegate)
- Why is Sega CD bolded? Last I checked, that was deprecated for lists
- Because I'm apparently quite behind the times. It has been removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking: Japan, North America, etc.
- Rectified. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise quite solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 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) 14:44, 15 January 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 Giants2008 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by David Boon
This list is based upon pre-existing lists of the similar type and I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments (re-visit)
|
- The only issue I can see is this: "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to him [.....] and described him that he......" - his accomplishments with the bat didn't describe him as anything, also in English we don't "describe that" something. I would re-write the sentence to "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to Wisden naming him as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994 and describing him as "the most assured batsman in the Australian team"". Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - you missed out a word when you put my suggested revised sentence in, but I fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 12 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [26].[reply]
Mack 10 discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a good amount of work into it and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while because of college so if there are any problems I will fix them as soon as possible...So just bare with me! THANK YOU!!!!! CrowzRSA 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Soooo no one wants to comment on this easy discography???? Why is this not in the urgently needing review section... CrowzRSA 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quick review, as you asked so nicely.
- Lead is too long.
- How is the lead too long? It summarizes the article and doesn't go overboard with anything. The guys released 8 studio albums, and everyone of them charted on the Billboard 200. For example, the Slipknot discography page is smaller in size yet it has a longer lead, which is necessary to summarize the article. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:LEAD and tell me how this bypasses the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mix number formats in a single sentence for items which are comparable.
- " West Coast rapper Mack 10" three wikilinks butted up together is potentially confusing.
- "was awarded Gold" you mean "certified".
- Which territory is each release date pertinent to?
- Where are releases which didn't chart anywhere such as "Do tha Damn Thing" referenced?
- All refs need to comply with WP:DASH.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, couple of raw URLs in the refs need to be fixed. Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. All issues were addressed and i seriously think it meets each criteria. So if there are any more issues—major or minor—please comment. CrowzRSA 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate comment: This candidate has been archived. There may be a delay between the closing of this nomination and the bot running through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [27].[reply]
List of National Football League retired numbers
- Nominator(s): Darylgolden(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC), 71.126.8.99[reply]
I am nominating this on behalf of 71.126.8.99 for featured list because he recently added citations and added pictures, and now thinks that it is worthy of being a featured list. Darylgolden(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater
Major problems (the below comments will refer to the Featured List criteria):
- The lead is far too short and what is there is not very good. Please see WP:LEAD. Currently fails criteria #1 and #2.
- I believe it is safe to presume comprehensiveness at this time, however as it includes listings of "none" for teams with no retired numbers, I would call this a failure of criteria #3 due to the table contents going outside the scope of the page.
- Has no section headings, no table of contents, and table sorting functions do not work as they should. Fails criteria #4.
- At the very least it does not comply with WP:LEAD nor WP:ACCESS and therefore fails criteria #5.
- Fails criteria 5(a), visual appeal, due mainly to failing most of the other criteria.
- Fails criteria 5(b) due to images having poor captions and no alt texts.
- Passes criteria #6.
Potential solutions and other more specific problems:
- The lead has to be completely re-written with a length equal to the scope of the topic. I would think the lead of a page like this one would be about 3 paragraphs.
- Get rid of the "none" listings. This isn't List of National Football teams that have no retired numbers.
- Done.
- Team names need to be displayed in full per WP:NOPIPE. The way it is done now also breaks sorting functionality.
- Done.
- Fixed headings.
- There should be at least one section heading separating the lead from the list.
- Done.
- Player name should sort by last name. Use the {{sortname}} template for this.
- Done.
- Get rid of conference column. Irrelevant. The row header should be uber important, either the player's name or number.
- Done.
- Also, the row header should be sorted alphabetically by the player's last name on initial page view (ie, the code should be arranged this way). Right now the default sort is "no particular order, but grouped by club." Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's based on team then number. I think that it's fine.
- Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Organization: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." I don't believe that the current structure of the list meets this standard. Rejectwater (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Posthumous: I don't know what to say about this. Also seems irrelevant. Not in the About.com source.
- Removed.
- Is About.com considered a reliable source?
- About.com is not a reliable source. Also, the citation claims the page is published by the NFL, which is absurd. Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Image captions are boring. See WP:CAPTIONS.
- Spruced things up a bit.
- Not a single image has an alt text. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
- Done.
- There is no image in the lead.
- Do not use contractions such as "don't".
- Done.
- References should follow the punctuation mark, not come before.
- Done.
- "are considered" - see WP:AWT. Considered by whom?
- Done.
- Citations are so poorly formatted I don't even know where to begin. See WP:CITE and Template:Cite web for starters. Several dead links in there as well. Rejectwater (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference column should not be sortable. Rejectwater (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Oppose
- Lead is too short.
- Citations need correct and consistent format.
- WP:DASH needs to be adhered to.
- Why is San Diego Chargers retired numbers specified as a see also?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 December 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [28].[reply]
List of Carolina Panthers head coaches
This is a list featuring all of the head coaches of the Carolina Panthers. It is a bit on the short side, primarily because the team has only had four coaches since joining the NFL in 1995, but is comparable to other featured lists on the topic. I didn't have to do much on the article aside from cleanup and lede expansion, and with those out of the way I think this meets the FL criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Rejectwater
Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Great list, well formatted, all my concerns addressed. I believe it meets the criteria. Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't this list be included into the main article Carolina Panthers? I don't see a reason why there needs to be a stand-alone list, considering that the list only has 4 entries (WP:WIAFL 3b). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume this is a list of internal consistency, because every team has a list. Moving the tables to the main article, a featured article, would make it very out of place, as would transferring all the info because on the main article, there is only a short paragraph on coaching along with ownership and executive officers... adding all the info here would make that section excessively focus on coaches. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Every NFL team has a list of coaches per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Rejectwater (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can easily be merged into the parent article. Summary style is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM furthermore the list has only four entries so doesn't fulfill 3(b) criteria. Zia Khan 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this entry due to trending consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been failed, 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) 23:14, 11 January 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 15:19, 20 January 2014 [29].
List of Detroit Red Wings award winners
- Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, what do we have here but yet another Detroit Red Wings Featured List nomination. What is with these guys? This time around we have List of Detroit Red Wings award winners, easily the longest of the bunch and arguably the most impressive (in terms of what the team has accomplished). The team and it's players have taken home 158 awards so far; if a Red Wing hasn't won it, it probably isn't an active NHL award. The list has undergone peer review where all concerns were addressed. save for one regarding a tagging issue with one of the images. I am unconvinced that is a critical issue, but if others feel it is we can address it somehow. Also, I currently have an open FL nomination for List of Detroit Red Wings general managers, however I believe that given the status of that nomination I am within the standard that "[u]sers should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." As always I look forward to reading, addressing, and responding to your comments. Regards, and thank you for your time. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, having already been through it at the Peer Review. However, a note about File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg, I did leave a note at Commons about it at commons:Commons:Village_pump#File:Red_Wings_retired_Banners.jpg, but didn't get a response. :( — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support, and also for trying to get something done with that image. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're most welcome, I only wish there was more of a response to help with it, — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My two cents is, if you have the time, give it another look. It's a fairly long list and if there is one thing I know about reviewing articles, it's that there is always something that can be improved upon. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is well cited, comprehensive, and laid out fine. All the images have alt text (even if some of them are a little short, like Ted Lindsay). Good article, deserves a star. Anthony (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support. The alts were all recently updated per my understanding of WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. The Ted Lindsay image you mentioned is just a picture of Ted Lindsay, and so that is all the alt text says. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not a lot left for me to complain about. I have only some small nitpicks, none of which would prevent me from casting my support now. Solid format and structure to the article, and incorporates some ideas that I really should go back and update List of Calgary Flames award winners with.
- "...and are one of the Original Six teams of the league." - This reads as if it is meant to be taken literally, as in the Red Wings were one of the NHL's first six franchises. Easily fixed by putting "Original Six" in quotes, thus changing the implication.
- The Red Wings are in an odd situation where, if they should reach the Stanley Cup Finals from the Eastern Conference, could have won the Wales Trophy for three different reasons. I think it would be useful to add and end note explaining that the Wales Trophy was first a divisional championship trophy, then a regular season championship, and now dedicated to the Eastern Conference championship. Especially since we know someone will come along and "fix" this. Also as a suggestion - and only if you (and others) think it a good idea: the Wales Trophy section could be split into two rows, the first showing when they won the American Division, and the second had the most points.
- Question: Do the Red Wings hand out team awards, similar to those awarded by the Flames? Near as I can tell from their media guide, they don't, but I would like to make sure as you are obviously an expert on the team! Resolute 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Calgary list - it's funny you say that because it was that page and List of New York Islanders award winners that served as the inspiration for this page.
- Original Six - fair enough. Done.
- Wales footnote - I have thought about the note explaining that also and will add it in soon. I don't think the idea of splitting the award into two rows is a good idea; the footnote should explain things sufficiently.
- Team awards - no, I am not aware of anything like that. As you say, there is no mention of any such awards in the team media guide. For a publication that includes the team's all time record in games played on Halloween, I trust that not being in that guide means there aren't any.
- Thank you for your kind words, input, support, and for taking the time. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
Their most recent team trophy was the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl in 2009, taken in honor of being the champions of the Western Conference. - You just mentioned they are part of the Eastern conference. How can they be champions of the Western Conference?their uniform number retired - what's a good link for this? Retired number, maybe?The section #Individual awards could do with standardising how you write numbers (numerals or words)The second paragraph of #All-Star Game selections needs at least one citationJack Adams Player 1959 none - What's this supposed to mean, no years playing with the team? If he was a manager for the team, then you should give a footnote clarifying how he was involved with the Red Wings. Other people in a similar situation as well.The Red Wings have also made the number 6 of Larry Aurie and the number 16 of Vladimir Konstantinov no longer available for issue, however those numbers are not considered to be officially retired - so why are they not available?- Look for duplicate links between sections, like Gordie Howe, First and Second Team All-Stars, Stanley Cup, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- West vs. East; have added footnote that explains this.
- Retired number - added wikilink
- How numbers are written - I believe I have standardized the entire page in this regard. Numbers are written out using words in prose sections and in numerals in tables. There is one exception: the retired numbers section. In that section uniform numbers are displayed as numerals which is the way they are used and displayed (ie, Steve Yzerman wore 19, not nineteen). More to follow. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All-Star Game selections citations - done.
- Hall of Fame/none - added footnotes for individuals in question. Rejectwater (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added explanations for Aurie and Konstantinov.
- Duplicate links - the page is currently set up as one link per term per prose section with unlimited links in the sortable tables. You are saying there should be no more than one link per term for the entire article? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Last one: Only in prose sections outside the lede. Tables should be fully wikilinked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
- Descriptions should be unsortable
- Is it possible for you to add (#) beside the names to denote how many times the player has won the same award?
- Why fix the widths of the tables? The tables will appear just as good without the fixed widths :D
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Descriptions, unsortable - I disagree. Is there a policy at play here or is this your preference?
- Making the Description column sortable does not add value to the table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting rid of the function certainly doesn't add value. I take it then, that this is your preference. Having no knowledge of any pertinent policy that would apply here my preference is to leave it as it is. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is no policy that states that descriptions must be unsortable, and this may be a personal preference; however, the descriptions are not data, and this may only be my opinion, but I just find sorting non-data to be redundant. I also don't recollect any other tables that sort their descriptions except for the two in this article. It would be nice if there was a third-party to comment on this matter. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- add (#) beside the names - yes, it is possible. I am unsure of the value of this and fear it would clutter the table(s).
- It won't clutter the tables, seeing that they are all wide enough. The reason why I had them on the featured lists have I have contributed to is because I, and assuming that others do as well, would like to know how many times each player has won said award. It gives readers a sense of how successful each player was during his time with the Red Wings.
- What I am thinking for this is two additional columns. One for times won by individual and one for aggregrate team wins. This would allow sorting. Readers could see which award has been won the most by individuals, won the most by the team overall, etc. Let me know what you think. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good plan to me! I can't visualize what you are describing, but I think it would be informative. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed width - featured list criteria 5a, visual appeal. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The huge empty areas are visually unappealing. I can see that you want the table all the same width, but just look at all that extra unneeded space in the Number of selections column for NHL First and Second Team All-Stars! The Team trophies table looks squished, so a fixed width is unnecessary for that specific table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfixing the width of the tables doesn't get rid of any unused area. The tables simply stretch to fill all available space. Fixing the width limits the size of the table, it doesn't expand it. I have fixed the team trophy table to be the same size as the others. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it depends on the table. If we remove all the fixed width settings, some tables would stretch to fill the whole screen while others would be tiny. The unused space you are concerned with would be empty whitespace on the page rather than empty space in the table cells. Huge, huge chunks of empty whitespace in many sections. Of course, that also depends on the screen resolution and size of the window the browser is being viewed in, which cannot be controlled for... except by fixing the width as a percentage. Rejectwater (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Team trophies" table now looks out of place with the resolution that I have (1366px width). I suggest that that table alone be left unfixed so that it is visually appealing for common resolutions (~1280px and up), unless there is a better solution. Also, why is this particular table unsortable? I was assuming that it was because the table is short enough for the sorting function to not be needed, but then I saw the table for "Other awards", and that one is sortable. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the "Number of selections" column that I mentioned, how about shorten the column title to "Selections" and fix the width to 1%? I think that will resolve the gigantic empty space in that column, and will make the table look more even. Try that out and let me know what you think. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments (well, ignorant questions mainly)
- Lead says "awards and honors" but the title is simply "award winners", should this be moved to "award and honor winners"?
- "captured the Stanley Cup as league champion" is there another way to win the Stanley Cup other than to be league champion?
- Not any more, but the Cup predates the NHL, it was originally a challenge trophy and for a time it was a championship trophy for the winner of a series between PCHA/WCHL/WHL and NHA/NHL. It was possible to be NHL champions and not win the Stanley Cup. While both of those eras predate the Wings it is part of the Cup's history.
- " team's most decorated player" should that be "individual player" or is he both?
- Not sure I understand.
- " leads goaltenders with three wins of the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goaltender" repetitive use of goaltender.
- Looking at the lead it appears that it is broken down by position so I'm not sure how to re-word in the current format and use the official description of the trophy. I thought about changing the first instance to netminders of goalies but I'm not sure how encyclopedic either one is.
- "uniform retired", I imagine we have a suitable link for this in the lead.
- Linked
- "1954–55" etc wrap onto two lines for me, suggest use of the {{nowrap}} template to prevent this from occurring.
- Added nowrap all of the dates on the team awards table.
- Also, for non-experts, is there a link to "regular season"?
- Linked
- Lindstrom is missing his diacritic. So is Borje.
- There is a compromise at WP:Ice Hockey that diacritic are used on all bios and pages for leagues where that are commonly used. But not used on pages based on leagues that do not use them (most North American based pages). I added pipe links to avoid redirects.
- Sorting on Description, since it's free text, is a little pointless.
- Removed sorting ability
- I would have thought Plus–minus should be separated by an en-dash, not a hyphen.
- These are how the pages are named. I'm not sure what the proper format would be.
- In Safari, "Number of selections" column is far wider than any other, yet it contains only two digits at most.
- Shortened to Selections, which reduces the column size a bit, but I'm not sure how to make it smaller.
- If "Babe Siebert Memorial Game" is so notable, why no article?
- No one has made a page for it yet. Being it's from 1939 the sources are more difficult to find (majority offline) and its less likley to be worked on due to age.
- " with the Lester Patrick Trophy. The Lester Patrick Trophy" poor prose alert.
- Changed second mention to The trophy as to not repeat back to back.
- Image captions which are not complete sentences should not have a full stop.
- Removed.
- Would imagine you could try 3 columns in the refs since so many point at the book and a single page ref.
- Changed to 3 columns
- Ensure retrieval dates are all formatted the same.
- I think that they are all now the same
- Similar applies to publication dates.
- Same as the access dates, though I may have missed one.
Will do a proper review when I get time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Randomly came across the FLC and I noticed that there was no activity from the nominator. The above list seemed pretty straight forward and I didn't want all of their hard work to go to waste or the comments not to at least be addressed, so I figured I'd address them quickly. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:01, 15 January 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) 15:39, 20 January 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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [30].[reply]
40th Daytime Emmy Awards
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with promoted Featured lists in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support: The list looks really good. Well done.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 December 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, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [31].[reply]
List of municipalities in Alberta
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Alberta (Canada) completed to the same standard as the recently FLC promoted equivalents for other Canadian provinces, namely List of municipalities in Manitoba and List of municipalities in Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dudley Miles |
---|
This is an excellent list. On a quick look, I have a few minor quibbles.
|
I'm sorry to always be that guy, but, as you know, this list is extremely duplicative of List of communities in Alberta, and again with Specialized municipalities of Alberta, List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of cities in Alberta, List of towns in Alberta, List of summer villages in Alberta, and List of census agglomerations in Alberta. Yes, those include a little bit more info and some former municipalities, but I don't see why the same datasets should be copied three times. I was a bit confused by seeing identical information in different places, and duplication and redundancy can pose the problem of the pages falling out of sync when changes are made, so I would encourage a simple merge. The communities list appears to already have everything that's in this list, plus the unincorporated settlements. Reywas92Talk 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See this recent deletion proposal that resulted in a speedy keep. You are correct there is duplication. However, what you may not have yet seen is that all the data in the tables at the main articles is transcluded to the List of communities in Alberta article, so thus far there is no duplication with risk of pages falling out of sync when changes are made. For this list article, the specialized municipality and Metis settlement table data are both transcluded from their main articles as well. The intent was to implement complex customized transclusion to do the same from the main articles for the urban and rural municipalities as well, but I haven't mastered that yet. I do intend to investigate this further as redundancy has been a concern that I've voiced previously.[32][33] In the meantime, as you've also noticed, the main articles do contain more information for each municipal type (more columns, additional sections, lists of former municipalities, etc.), which would bog down this summary list article of all varying municipality types and require splitting back to the current state. Hwy43 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had this criticism as well for a prior nomination. Especially with articles like list of towns, villages, districts etc that you mention I'm still on the fence. I have sympathy for list of census agglomerations (which are very different) and list of communities which is like a catch all. What convinced me was WP:NOTPAPER. As long as each page adds *something* that is not found in this list then why not? I believe the list of municipalities is probably the best and most useful page out of the lot you mention, as municipalities are actual governing entities with borders and tax payers and elected officials. Something like census divisions are just for statistical purposes, and communities is a mishmash, so I'm glad this is the one that is being nominated, for what it's worth.Mattximus (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattximus |
---|
Comments from Mattximus (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Layout is much better with the merged maps. Excellent list. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very good list. I have not tried to make my comments resolved as one of them led on to comments by other editors. By the way, is there a template for making comments resolved? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. Nice piece of work: I couldn't spot any issues with it and I happily support it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been promoted. There may be a slight delay while the bot processes the nomination. Congratulations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [34].[reply]
List of light cruisers of Germany
Another in my series of German warship types, this comprises the light cruisers built from the 1890s to the 1940s. This is the capstone for this topic. It passed a MILHIST ACR last month. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- To what use did the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine put Hamburg and Berlin? Barracks ships or similar?
- Explain Dresden's fate.
- Link beach and grounded.
- Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
On first glance I find nothing wrong with the list, although list is a bit of an understatement. However, I found some minor points that should be addressed:
- The first sentence - though accurate - seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Maybe we could drop the reference to the different historical periods as they are reflected in the names of the navies mentioned?
- Sounds fine to me.
- The second chapter is titled World War II-era, but covers mostly the inter-war period. Maybe it should be called Post-World War I-era or something alike.
- In the paragraph on Emden (1925) the phrase "by the reformed Reichsmarine" is used. As someone else pointed out, it should be re-formed, as it is rather questionable that the Reichsmarine saw the errors of its ways and repented.
- Good catch.
- In the paragraph on the Leipzig-class, Gotenhafen is mentioned. Maybe it could be extended by the present-day name, Gdynia, Poland. And a time reference would be in order.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good list. A few minor comments.
- "foreign stations" - I think this should be defined.
- "five members of the succeeding Königsberg and Leipzig classes" - presumably members means ships but it sounds a bit odd to me.
- It's a pretty routine way to refer to the ships in a class.
- "A further six ships of the M class were planned in the late 1930s, but the outbreak of war forced their cancellation." Why would war force their cancellation rather than making proceeding with them a higher priority? (I see this is explained below but I think a revised wording would be helpful).
- Because once war breaks out, the most pressing needs get priority of construction (in this case, U-boats). Again, I think spelling this out is too much detail in the lead.
- Brummer class. "And to further aid them in their offensive minelaying role, they were designed to resemble British cruisers." Why did resembling British cruisers help them - for disguise?
Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - if you spot a ship in the foggy, squally North Sea that looks like a British ship, you won't open fire immediately, which gives the German ships a bit longer to escape. Added "to help conceal their identity." - does that clear it up any? Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support typically excellent work. Would only have one wish, that the tables were all formatted the same, but it may be a screen width issue that shrinks the Karlsruhe section and Cöln section compared to the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, TRM. I've checked the tables on my desktop, laptop and smart phone and they all looked fine on those screens, but I guess that wasn't enough ;) I added {{clear}} templates after the images so that should keep them from pushing the tables over. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the article is written in AmEng, but is it normal to have a non-US date format used as well? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Germany uses day-month-year format so that's what I went with. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 5 January 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [35].[reply]
Deportation of Armenian notables on 24 April 1915
- Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is an extensive and very informative article about a part of world history few know. The article is prolifically sourced and is truly remarkably done. Nothing is left unsourced. It didn't pass GA only because it was recommended to FL. Looking forward for the review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I think that the red links that are used for most of the names on the table should be removed, per point 5a in the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --1ST7 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that this page wasn't watchlisted. I will get to removing the red links ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED: Okay red links are now removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Maybe the Armenian script under the names on the list should be removed as well; it might help the list to look cleaner and enhance visual appeal. Also, I found an image of ten of the Armenian intellectuals who were killed during the deportations; I thought that it would make a better picture for the lead and moved the one that was previously in the lead down a little to another section in the article. I hope that's alright with you. --1ST7 (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED: Okay red links are now removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: Thanks for the wonderful addition to the article. I just sent the photograph to the graphics lab since I figured it needs a lot of improvement. As for the Armenian scripture, it's hard for me to say whether we should remove it since these intellectuals were strictly Armenian reading, writing, and speaking people. I also personally believe that it is good for research purposes. Their names are prevalent throughout many Armenian written sources and novels. But then again, this is just my opinion. Nevertheless, I am fine with removing it if there's consensus against it. I say we wait for additional opinions on that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion: Genocide Remembrance Day is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article. I think a section needs to be added on that subject, per WP:LEAD. You can include information on when the day was first established, who it is commemorated by (I believe April 15 is also designated to commemorate the Assyrian Genocide), and how it is commemorated. You could also use one of these images. --1ST7 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: That's a valid consideration. When I have time this weekend, I'll add a little bit about Armenian Genocide remembrance day. Much of that information is already found on other articles...I can incorporate them from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: I added the section but it needs a nice CE. If you can help me out with a CE that'll be great. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to help, but I can't do it at the moment. If you can wait until tomorrow, I should be able to then. --1ST7 (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, done. --1ST7 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a review here? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion: Genocide Remembrance Day is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article. I think a section needs to be added on that subject, per WP:LEAD. You can include information on when the day was first established, who it is commemorated by (I believe April 15 is also designated to commemorate the Assyrian Genocide), and how it is commemorated. You could also use one of these images. --1ST7 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: Thanks for the wonderful addition to the article. I just sent the photograph to the graphics lab since I figured it needs a lot of improvement. As for the Armenian scripture, it's hard for me to say whether we should remove it since these intellectuals were strictly Armenian reading, writing, and speaking people. I also personally believe that it is good for research purposes. Their names are prevalent throughout many Armenian written sources and novels. But then again, this is just my opinion. Nevertheless, I am fine with removing it if there's consensus against it. I say we wait for additional opinions on that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I'm finding the prose in the body to be really choppy and oddly worded, and the flow of the text as a whole is disjointed- you don't adhere very strongly to a narrative timeline, and it reads like a scattering of facts whose primary purpose is to shame the perpetrators rather than inform the reader. A few examples of problems I found listed below.- "May 1915, they were later relocated, within the Empire" - second comma unnecessary - DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most who commemorate the Armenian Genocide believe that 24 April 1915 is the date" - "consider 24 April 1915 to be the date" sounds better to my ears - Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "holiday in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" - "the" before Nagorno Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Detention section, it should probably be combined into fewer, longer paragraphs- they're a bit short. DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "At Constantinople, the action was operated" - "In Constantinople, the action was led" DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The third paragraph of Detention is really choppy, and should be re-flowed Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The train was under way with 220 Armenians" - tense change, sounds like a copyvio. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "band of brigands" - sensational language; they were a state-sponsored paramilitary group DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Marzbed was dispatched to Kayseri" - who's Marzbed? Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole Court martial section seems out of place- you're talking about all the prisoners arriving at the prisons, then suddenly you're calling out the assassination of a couple of them and the court martial of another, with their longer-term consequences, before jumping back to the release of several others.
- Three different top-level sections in a row with 1-2 short paragraphs each is really wonky. It would be a lot better to split the whole thing into deportation/detention and aftermath. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table could use some sorting ability. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual work should be in italics in ref 3, and it needs more information overall, and given that you translate all the other Armenian in the refs you should translate this. Done (Removed Ref) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 40 and 50 need more detail, and 50 needs to drop the all-caps Done (They are now refs 39 and 49 respectively) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes need capitals at the beginning of each one and a period at the end. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--PresN 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm fine with the work done above. Remaining issues:
- You have the names in the table alphabetical by last name, but they sort by first name when you sort the column. See the {{sortname}} template, or just the {{sort}} template. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few rows in the table have no source for any of their columns: Vartabed Garabed Mkrtichian, Hagop Tekeyan, Dz. Vartabed Yervant Perdahjian, and Bedros Kahanay Garabedian. Done (I removed them since they're unsourced) Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- --PresN 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see prior issues were addressed with due diligence, above. I find the page to be most meticulously sourced with appropriate references, and with the extra notes quite educational and informative for the reader. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I'm an Armenian user, I would like to avoid supporting the nomination. Instead, I want to make several minor edits that will improve the article a bit. --Երևանցի talk 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I partly improved the referencing format. It's still a little confusing and I'll try to work on it later, too. I also added an infobox.
- I wanna do is add a simple map that will show the key locations (Constantinople, Ayaş, Çankırı, Diyarbakır, etc) of the deportations on the 1914 Ottoman Empire map. --Երևանցի talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Proudbolsahye, do you think a map is necessary? --Երևանցի talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good with me Yerevantsi. Also, have you been able to assess the issues PresN presented above? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, the sorting thing will take some time to complete, but I can definitely do it. I don't know about the unsourced individuals.--Երևանցի talk 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the sorting. --Երևանցի talk 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Map added. --Երևանցի talk 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I fixed all the aforementioned issues. Thanks Yerevantsi for your diligent effort for bringing about the wonderful sort-ability. The map looks nice too. Now people will know where those cities are without actually clicking on the Wikilinks to find out. I just removed the "Date of Deportation" column since it was unnecessary. 99% of the deportees were deported on the same day (24 April 1915). I clarified the exceptions in the Notes column. @PresN: Let me know if any other changes are needed. Thanks for all the wonderful support. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good with me Yerevantsi. Also, have you been able to assess the issues PresN presented above? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm Since this is a sensitive subject, I strongly encourage to change all the instances of Constantinople to Istanbul - the common usage in the current English. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Nergaal: I believe there is already a consensus instated among Wikipedians that when referring to Istanbul prior to the formal adoption of the name on March 28, 1930, we must use Constantinople. Let me know whether my response helped the concern you've raised. Nevertheless, I am willing to change it. I just want the consensus to be considered when it comes to the name since it certainly has been a contentious issue in the Wikipedia community. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't realized that the change was so late. Perhaps mention "currently Istanbul" after the first usage? Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think that the current title does a disservice to the article. "Notables" is not a common usage in current English, and I think you were referring to "Notable people".
- The intro does very little to discuss the content of the table. How many people were deported? Were all the people in the table deported on April 24?
- Who is not included in the table?
- Perhaps change the title to "List of notable Armenians deported on 24 April 1915"?
Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: Thanks for raising these questions. In response to the concerns you have raised:
- The article states 2,345 Armenians were detained. All of whom were deported. I have just provided extra clarification for this and an extra ref for additional verification.
- My recent edit here removed the category of the deportation date. It was taking up too much space but more importantly, it was very repetitive. Almost all, with the exception of 5 deportees, were deported on the same day. The article uses 24 April 1915 as the base date for the deportations. I have provided additional clarifications for the 5 exceptions in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. See: Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is limited to the deportees as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources. The article already states this, "Below is a list of prominent Armenian intellectuals, community leaders and other public figures that were deported from Constantinople on 24 April 1915, as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources"
- I am willing to change the name of the article. The article itself has gone through a lot of name changes. The talk page of the article highlights some of these changes and the reasons behind them. "List of notable Armenians deported in April 1915" doesn't sound like a bad idea, however, I believe the specific date of 24 April 1915 should be added since the date itself is very important to the commemoration of the event itself. I also might want to suggest to carry this topic of discussion to the talk page, so as to not go back and forth in the nomination page. If we agree on a name change, we can come back with a definitive solution here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I would like a little more background. What were the notables accused of? Campaigning for Armenian independence? Working to overthrow the Sultanate?
- I assume that this was the first phase of the genocide which eventually murdered over 1 million. If so, this should be stated.
- How is a notable defined? The article says 2435 were deported, which seems a high number.
- "The 24th of April has become Genocide Remembrance Day". The date is not generally observed by non-Armenians. I think it would be clearer if you shifted the last clause in the paragraph to make "The 24th of April is observed by the Armenian diaspora around the world as Genocide Remembrance Day".
- "first commemorated in 1919 as in observance of its four-year anniversary in Constantinople". This seems ungrammatical and unclear. Commemorated in Istanbul or by Armenians elsewhere of events in Istanbul? (I see this is explained below. Perhaps leave out "as in observance of its four-year anniversary").
- Why mention those with Russian citizenship? If they were treated differently from the others this should be explained.
- "Most of the arrested were sent after identification of the particulars from Central Prison". "after identification of the particulars" is superfluous. I would leave it out.
- "right away tried in vain". "right away" is a bit colloquial. I would prefer "immediately".
- "Roughly 150 political prisoners were detained in Ayaş, and another 150 intellectual prisoners were detained in Çankırı." Were the prisoners separated into politicals and intellectuals?
- "Mazhar Bey defied the secret instructions of Talat Pasha, the Interior Minister." What secret instructions?
Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate comments
- Oppose owing to titling and selection concerns.
- Why is the title "notables"? What criteria is used in determining that?
- Armenia - why is this linked so late?
- This list does not include 2,455 people (so it is not a full list), nor does it contain only blue links (thus it is not a list of all of them who have Wikipedia articles). What exactly is the selection criteria for this list? If many of the names are not known or recorded (in which case "notables" would be a vast overstatement), this should be noted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although Proudbolsahye is the nominator and it would be better if he addresses these issues, I'd like to respond to Crisco's comments. 1) You are right about the use of "notables". I very much doubt all these people were notable, even within the Armenian community of Constantinople. I know up to 20 people from the list, with 5 of them being very famous and recognizable by most Armenians. I think "intellectuals" would be a good replacement. 2) The modern Republic of Armenia (which is only a small part of the pre-genocide Armenia) had no direct relation to this event. Constantinople had more Armenians than any other city in the world at that time, but it is still outside Armenia. It's somewhat comparable to Kristallnacht and Israel. 3) The list is of all known people "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources". --Երևանցի talk 04:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources" does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources. This needs to be explicit. Otherwise the list could be understood as the writer being uninitiated and not wanting to do archive diving (for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources" well who claims it does? This list was created based on major works dealing with the deportation. Those sources are Teotig, Grigoris Balakian and others. I think it might be a good idea to clearly indicate the sources somewhere in the article? --Երևանցի talk 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not indicating the sources, it is indicating why 2,000+ individuals are represented by 20 (over half of whom are not Wikipedia notable). That's not a comprehensive list. Period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of Armenians deported on April 24 1915. I amended the sentence that presents the list to further emphasize this point and to clarify any sort of misunderstanding. Indeed, the April 24 deportations are considered the first wave of deportations while the 2,345 figure is the total amount of all deportees which eventually took place from April 24 and thereon. I had to remove the category of "Date deported" column here because it was overly redundant and it took up too much space. There are however a few notable exceptions which have been specified in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If 24 people were deported on the first day, why is that information not in the lede? I mean, this is basic writing. And the issue with "notables" has still not been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just requested a move to "Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915". See more here. --Երևանցի talk 16:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have also amended the lead to better suit the list as suggested by other users here at the nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources" well who claims it does? This list was created based on major works dealing with the deportation. Those sources are Teotig, Grigoris Balakian and others. I think it might be a good idea to clearly indicate the sources somewhere in the article? --Երևանցի talk 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question In the lead it says "most were killed" (without a citation) but in the list, 78 are listed as being killed out of 235 to 270. Unless you mean most of the total number? If so that is not clear, and a citation should be provided. Mattximus (talk) 02:57, 10 January 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:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 14 January 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [36].[reply]
Family Guy (season 4)
I am nominating this for featured article because by the peer review that was made a few months ago, and the only problems that were found was the dead references and the British - American language, which was easily fixed by me. Also, by it's information, it does meet the FL criteria, and should be promoted. Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,suggest WP:Featured list instead. That's what Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are classified as, and it seems more appropriate for season articles. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Done Blurred Lines 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maralia A few notes after a quick look:
- The article talk page is templated with a note about several broken section links that date back to 2010; can you check whether those still need fixing?
- Done I have just checked those links, they seem to be fine, so I have removed the template from the talk page. Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly in the reference section (but also elsewhere), I see quite a few wikilinks inside quotations, which MOS says to avoid. Most of them are elementary-school-level vocabulary words (God, sex, sacred, profane, condom, racism) so there's really no need to link them anyway. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of italicized redlinks in the reference section that seem malformed: they don't point to likely article titles. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies,[6] becoming the best-selling television DVD of 2003" - grammatically, this says sales became the best-selling television DVD. This could be fixed with "The DVD set sold 2.2 million copies, making it the best-selling..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fox president Gail Berman said that it was one of her most difficult decisions to cancel the show, and was therefore happy it would return" - garbled; perhaps "Berman said canceling the show was one of her most difficult decisions, and she was therefore..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fewer critics responded negatively to the season; Seattle Post-Intelligencer critic Melanie McFarland reacted very negative" - negative is an adjective; you need an adverb here, and preferably a different one to avoid redundancy with the first half of the sentence. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see other grammar issues in the episode summaries, but don't have the time for a full review at the moment; will try to make it back to the article. Agree that FL is probably the proper venue. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Maralia (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dtngo (talk) Great article! I believe that this page is written excellently. It also has the standard format of a television and is easy to navigate. However, some of the citations in the reference list can be updated with online references:
- For the 4th citation, the Gordon article can be found online here: [37]
- For the 26th citation, the Golden Reel nominations and recipients can be found in an archived page here: [38]
- For the 27th citation, the McGuire article can be found online here: [39]
I hope this helps. Dtngo (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the content, not the contributor.
|
---|
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 24 January 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 not promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [40].[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce
- 'Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and Magiciandude (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after several months of working on this list in the Sandbox, with Erick, we feel that is meets the criteria. The list follows the format of the featured articles List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen and List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos. DivaKnockouts 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref comments
- Link latimes
- Link ASCAP to American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
- There is an uneeded space before ref [11] in the article. ("...award from one nomination. [11]")
Done Erick (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "both which he won" should be "both of which he won"
- In the last line of the lead, Tropical Song of the Year has a stray " at the start
- "Royce has received fifty-eight awards from 105 nominations" - either both should be in words or both should be in digits, not a mix of both
- I don't really like "Royce has not won an award from one nomination" under MTV Video Music Awards. Maybe "Royce has received one nomination but not won an award"........?
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I fixed the last issue by changing to "has received one nomination" to be consisted with the American Music Awards. Erick (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third point isn't fixed. Also, why is "Tropical Song of the Year" in quote marks? None of the other award categories mentioned in the lead are shown like that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 15 December 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.
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]
- Pleased to see the progress being made! I'm more than willing to be patient if an effort is being made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]