Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 4 |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) + |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rage Against the Machine awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Sunderland A.F.C. seasons}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Billy Talent awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of solar eclipses in the 21st century}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Björk awards}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Jupiter}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Moons of Jupiter}} |
Revision as of 17:25, 14 September 2008
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rage Against the Machine awards
- 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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [1].
Sunderland A.F.C. seasons
I am nominating this article for featured list candidate because I think it is up to the criteria. Thanks. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://www.thestatcat.co.uk/default.asp a reliable source?
- StatCat is a comprehensive database of Sunderland A.F.C. stats, covering every game ever played by the team, it is only edited by the owner of the website, it was discussed in this FLC here, and Struway2 also had comments on the StatCat. I think it is reliable because it is comprehensive and more accurate then other statistics websites, such as this which is generally unreliable for some stats, and can also be missing some player pages, meanwhile StatCat has every Sunderland player page back into its very beginings. It is attributed in many websites linking to its individual player profiles; [2], related site, [3]. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- StatCat is a comprehensive database of Sunderland A.F.C. stats, covering every game ever played by the team, it is only edited by the owner of the website, it was discussed in this FLC here, and Struway2 also had comments on the StatCat. I think it is reliable because it is comprehensive and more accurate then other statistics websites, such as this which is generally unreliable for some stats, and can also be missing some player pages, meanwhile StatCat has every Sunderland player page back into its very beginings. It is attributed in many websites linking to its individual player profiles; [2], related site, [3]. Sunderland06 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Image caption is a fragment so lose the full stop. Done - Removed full stop.
- "Sunderland won their first Football League championship just two years after joining the league in the 1891–92 season. They won the Football League First Division on three occasions in just four seasons; in 1892, 1893 and 1895, separated by a runners up spot in 1894. " - could use some work in my opinion as you sort of repeat the first sentence (most of it) in the following one. And I'm not keen on the "separated by..." (and runners-up should be hyphenated).
- First few sentences in the lead read a bit awkwardly for me - like a list of facts instead of really good, compelling prose. Suggest an independent copyedit.
- "Sunderland entered The Football League in 1890" - this comes waaay after you describe them winning it so it's a little oddly placed. Commment - I mentioned it there as it was the first season they got relagated and when the long stay becomes relevant.
- What is "Sheriff of London Charity Shield"? It's worth explaining this because it appears to be quite different from the regular charity shield. Or perhaps just the predecessor? Done - Added a footnote.
- Quite a few redlinked top-scorers. Seems a shame they don't even have stubs? Comment - I'm gonna create the rest.
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- 1890-91 you have points total of 23 where 2W + D = 25 ?? Done - Corrected.
- Think you'd better check this one with your sources.
- This is a mistake on the sources behalf, as they had 10 wins and 5 draws, so it is defiently 25 points, but was listed as 23 on the season page.
- Statcat 1890-91 says 2 points were deducted for playing Doig, an ineligible player. FCHD confirms the 2-point deduction.
- Ah I see, thanks for pointing it out. :)
- So perhaps it would be informative to add a note explaining why the number of points isn't what the reader might expect?
- Done.
- So perhaps it would be informative to add a note explaining why the number of points isn't what the reader might expect?
- Ah I see, thanks for pointing it out. :)
- Statcat 1890-91 says 2 points were deducted for playing Doig, an ineligible player. FCHD confirms the 2-point deduction.
- This is a mistake on the sources behalf, as they had 10 wins and 5 draws, so it is defiently 25 points, but was listed as 23 on the season page.
- Think you'd better check this one with your sources.
If it were me, I'd link every occurrence of each top scorer, so the reader doesn't have to search for a clickable name Done - Linked all.- Perhaps put your RSSSF Leading Goalscorers source as a citation for the bolded players key entry rather than under general references, then repeat it at note G Done - Changed.
- I'm confused now. Now I've actually looked at the RSSSF page, I find that your listed goals and bolded years for Johnny Campbell differ quite markedly from theirs ??
- I have used the data from the RSSSF page, in the 1895-96 season the top scorer of the league was John Campbell (footballer born 1871) not the Sunderland player John Campbell (footballer born 1870) which made it quite confusing.
- I'm confused now. Now I've actually looked at the RSSSF page, I find that your listed goals and bolded years for Johnny Campbell differ quite markedly from theirs ??
Footnotes E,F,G,H,N,O,P,R,S need citing. Would be good if the matches could be linked to match reports, ideally non-Sunderland sources such as BBC, Sky or broadsheet newspaper websites. Note P particularly needs the promotion due to Swindon's illegal payments citing. Done All referenced.
hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Sunderland Association Football Club should be like this: [[Sunderland A.F.C.|Sunderland Association Football Club]] - Comment - Linking is reall only neccessary once, at the beginning of the lead, I would see it rather pointless to link other instances.
- The key should be above the table, not below. Done - Moved to above.
-- K. Annoyomous24[c] 21:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good overall. A copyedit to make the prose a tad less choppy would be nice though. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 11 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [4].
List of Billy Talent awards
Gary King (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't like "2x platinum" etc in the prose for the lead - can you write it as English? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- "Both Billy Talent and Billy Talent II have been certified by the Canadian Recording Industry Association as three-times Platinum and two-times Platinum respectively.
-"Both" because that kind of denotes they recieved exactly the same.Wouldn't it be better to be like "triple platinum" and "double platinum" instead?
Otherwise, good work. REZTER TALK ø 12:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - well referenced and written list. REZTER TALK ø 16:07, 13 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [5].
List of solar eclipses in the 21st century
This is a comprehensive list containing all 224 eclipses predicted to happen this century. Predictions come from a well-known expert in the employ of NASA, and are precise and definite enough that WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply. The list is rather large at 95KB; I think that it's best as one list rather than multiple, but comments on this are welcome. (should it be split by decade? 50 year period?) I think that the column order is logical, but again comments on this are welcome. Finally, I'm aware that the areas might be overlinked, but I think it's justified here as the list is pretty random-access: the line of interest will always be the next eclipse, and users will probably want to click on links in that line (although perhaps the common ones like North America, Asia, Africa etc. don't need to be linked?). Also, the list is sortable, so there are multiple "tops of the list". Thanks for looking. Mike Peel (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- First off, good to see you at FLC Mike!
- Avoid starting the lead with "This is a list of solar eclipses in the 21st century" - more imagination required these days. Featured articles don't start with "This is an article about.." so avoid it here too.
- "During the period 2001 to 2100 there" - you need to remember you're talking to everyone, so say something like "Between 2001 AD and 2100 AD..."
- "2 of which will be off centre" - two of which will be off-centre? And what does "off-centre" mean?
- Explain (or link) totality, GSFC (before you abbreviate), hybrid eclipse...
- Convert the path width to imperial for us old-fashioned types.
- [2] is used everywhere - make it a general reference.
- "Central Duration" - duration.
- What's "greatest eclipse"? and "path width"?
- Perhaps need to explain that a partial eclipse doesn't have a path width for non-experts?
- " magnitude of the eclipse (the fraction of the sun's diameter obscured by the moon)" - how can this exceed unity?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking your comments in turn:
- Thanks!
- How's that?
- Ditto
- I've tried to explain this; does it make sense?
- I've linked to Solar_eclipse#Types; is that sufficient?
- Will do, but it will take a short while... Now done. Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm never sure about general references; I prefer to indicate where they are used, even if that is everywhere. Otherwise it makes it more tricky to work out which bits of an article aren't actually referenced.
- If I get your meaning right, then this is fixed
- Hopefully explained
- Actually, I think it does. But it's sufficiently large (and hence common) that it's not normally given.
- If the apparent size of the moon is larger than the sun. It's possibly more of a mathematical concept, but it will affect the duration (and area viewable from) of the maximum eclipse.
- Thanks for your comments. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a nice-looking list, logically constructed, and well-described. I have checked only a couple of the sources, but am trusting the check reported earlier. --Orlady (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [6].
Aston Villa F.C. statistics and records
previous FLC (22:24, 19 February 2008)
I am renominating this as I think I have dealt with all the problems highlighted in the previous FLC. The things I have not remedied: record transfer fees received; I have not found a single source that collates this, as such, it would be original research to a point. I also don't see the complete relevancy for this, the record transfer fees paid is hugely relevant, fees paid not so much. So, here we go again. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- How leads read for FLs has now changed, so it should need to start something like "Aston Vila Football Club is..." or something. But that's basically already there with the second paragraph, so what needs doing is a bit of reordering.
- "InterToto Cup" - "Intertoto".
- Also, the link is wrong.
- No needed for "Winners" beside it, as it says this directly below.
- "1981(shared)" - "1981 (shared)"
- Maybe when the club was runner-up in a competition could be included in the "Honours" section?
- All dates need unlinking, I found this out myself a few days ago.
- I'd put "against" rather than "v.".
- How many caps did Steve Staunton get? And who for?
- Maybe "Record transfer fees" could be renamed "Record transfer fees paid" for clarity, despite there being no section for record fees received.
- Need some full stops in the "Managerial records" section.
- References needed for "First manager/secretary of the club" and "Most successful manager".
- "in 1930–31 season" - "in the 1930–31 season", which needs doing for the rest of the seasons.
- "Division One / 1969–70" - perhaps "Division One and the 1969–70" instead?
- First League Cup match?
- "League: 69,492" - "League game: 69,492".
- "Cup game: 76,588" - "FA Cup game: 76,588".
- "the European Cup which" - comma needed
- Think it would look better if the contents of the "Round", "Country", "Home result" and "Away results" columns were centralised.
- A key is needed to clarify what each of the rounds are.
- "Record by Competition" - "Competition" doesn't need to be capitalised.
- "Correct as of 29 July, 2008" - out of date I assume?
- Maybe this table could be made sortable?
- "For" and "Against" are a bit unclear - "Goals for" and "Goals against" instead?
A fair bit. Think a peer review would have been best. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get your winners comment. In terms of dates, it is still optional until our MOS warriors stop warring over at MOSNUM, so it isn't obligatory to unlink just yet. (v.) is a common and well-used term and is used in other FLs. I think including runner-up would cramp it somewhat, and isn't that important, and potentially devalues the "Winner" links due to it being cramped. The / is used in a number of places and is used for consistency (and is perfectly valid grammatically). The League Cup match was already there (v. Huddersfield) but an unclosed ref tag was hiding it. Only thing outstanding is aligning the columns, I am not sure about them, waiting for further input from other reviewers. Woody (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments Fair enough with those you haven't chosen to do, they were more of personal opinion. But we'll see on the alignment issue eventually.
- What I'm referring to is "Intertoto Cup Winners" - the "Winners" seems redundant when it says they won it directly below.
- Full stop needed after "for the Republic of Ireland".
- Ref 44 needs converting into a footnote.
- The "Total" row in the "Record by competition" needs to be made unsortable.
- I think this table should also have its contents aligned in the centre, but you can wait for what others think.
- Perhaps a "Record by location" table could be added?
Cheers. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the Intertoto, done full stop, done ref 43, made unsortable. How do you mean record by location? I can't see any in any other stats FLs? Villa have only ever been at Villa Park since 1896... Woody (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you're in the process of getting those done. And this is what I'm talking about. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments Not far off now.
- "League titles" should just be "League" now.
- I'd say using reference [4] after the final honours of the different sections is a bit redundant with it being provided at the end of the sententce at the beginning of the section.
- "Charity Shield" - should be changed to "Community Shield".
- Could the "Record transfer fees paid" table be made sortable?
- Do you know the "Record League Cup win"?
- Or the "Record League Cup defeat" or "Record European defeat"?
- Don't think reference [37] mentions their attendance against Liverpool being their record Premier League attendance.
- Could you find the highest attendances at Villa Park in the League Cup or in Europe?
- Or the lowest attendance at Villa Park in the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup or Europe?
- The figures in the "Total" row of the "Record by competition" table could be bolded.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done League, removed redundant referencing, haven't changed the Charity Shield as it was been called the Charity Shield when they won it, made table sortable, added League Cup win and European defeat, done the bolded totals, switched the ref to programme notes which took me a while to find in my loft. I haven't been able to find the records for the other ones. I could go through the records for each season, but that would be synthesis/OR as it I cannot find them explicitly stated anywhere, and I could get it wrong. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "4&ndash1" needs fixing for the "Record European defeat" you added. Fair enough with the Community Shield. Could any of your Villa books explicity state the "Record League Cup defeat", or the record highest/lowest attedances? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Woody's away at the minute, I fixed the 4-1 typo though, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they don't; believe me, I have looked! One of the books has all of the records at the back over 4 pages so that is easy to check. I have gone through the A-Z book and cannot find any of the record attendances broken down by competition. That information simply isn't available to me through printed media, and the internet has proved paritcularly barren when it comes to finding reliable sources (or even unreliable ones) that state any of those requested. There simply is nowhere else available to me to look at. Regards. Woody (talk) 21:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Woody's away at the minute, I fixed the 4-1 typo though, Struway2 (talk) 15:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "4&ndash1" needs fixing for the "Record European defeat" you added. Fair enough with the Community Shield. Could any of your Villa books explicity state the "Record League Cup defeat", or the record highest/lowest attedances? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments
- Reference needed for the "Record European win".
- Reference [35] needs converting into a footnote.
- Could the record League Cup defeat not be worked out using FCHD?
- "UEFA CUP" - "CUP" doesn't need to be capitalised.
- My opinion is it seems quite "wonky" really to have the highest attendances in three competitions and only the lowest in one competition. I'd consider only having the record highest and record lowest for equality, but that's upto you really.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done the first 4, though I suspect the FCHD crosses into the murky WP:SYN/WP:OR boundary, though I think it is an acceptable source. In terms of the attendances, I don't think symmetry is a neccessity here. Personally, I think the larger the number of those records available, the better. It includes all the available information, though I do understand your viewpoint. (Sorry for the late replies but I went away for the week). Thanks again for the time you have spent reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If you feel it would be pretty much impossible to get those record highest and lowest attendances, then nevermind really, I feel it meets the FL criteria anyway. Good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.englandfootballonline.com/index.html- Well used, and well trusted site. Professionally run and even recommended as a ref by FOOTY.
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well used, and well trusted site. Professionally run and even recommended as a ref by FOOTY.
http://www.toffeeweb.com/http://web.telia.com/~u27301997/start.htmlhttp://www.heroesandvillains.net/
Current ref 23 is lacking a publisher
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments quite a bit, I'm afraid, much of it minor stuff:
- Lead. Unbold club name.
- Do you need to link the year they moved to Villa Park?
- If linking years, why link 1982 to 1982 in English football when the others are yyyy in association football?
- Last sentence doesn't need to mention Aston Villa's first England players twice
- Relevance of Young being the 66th? if the most recent, say "66th and most recent". As he's not mentioned in the international section, he needs a source.
- You need a line saying "All figures are correct as of..."
- Suggest reducing the size of the displayed table of contents
- Image caption: century doesn't need capital
- Honours. League Cup not a senior league honour
- Is any of the bolding really necessary (see MOS:BOLD)?
- Team picture image captions are fragments so don't need full stops
- Player records. Perhaps add a See also List of AVFC players
- For me on a 1024-width screen, the players' names in the tables wrap. If you adjusted the column widths a bit (this and this have 6, 20, 12s and 14), the League Cup heading might wrap but the names won't
- The # column in the goalscorers table doesn't sort properly (because of the 10=). It gets to reverse order, but won't go back
- International. I prefer while to whilst, but that may be just a matter of taste
- Much overlinking in this bit (McParland linked 3 times, etc)
- Don't need to repeat whilst an AV player for Southgate, the heading note already defines the scope
- Does "in a World Cup" mean "at a/the World Cup Finals"?
- Transfer fees. The notes for the undisclosed fees belong in the footnotes section (and "Milners" needs an apostrophe)
- Clubs should be left-aligned, and West Ham should be West Ham United
- Ashley Young image caption doesn't need a full stop. Perhaps rephrase to something like "Until August 2008, Ashley Young was Villa's record signing.", in which case with a full stop
- Managerial records. Ramsay overlinked
- Club records: Goals. Typo in fewest conceded...
- Overlinking in goals and points sections
- Matches. First European match. In what comp?
- Record European win. In what comps, and put "and" rather than "/"
- Check for missing full stops at ends of lines in the Matches sections, there are at least 2 but my eyes aren't as young as they were :-( also after v for versus
- Record league defeat. Here you call it the First Division, but you've been calling it Division One
- Attendances. FA Cup. Don't need to repeat FA Cup in match details. Do need consistency for round names (either 6th as you have here, or first as you have in Record FA Cup win)
- Villa in Europe table. Your rounds column has e.g. "2R" but your key has "R2". I'd prefer to see that column centred
- Flags column. WP:FLAGS#Accompany flags with country names says flags should always be accompanied by their country name, at least when first used. It doesn't bother me so much in the small player tables where they're mostly British anyway (though it probably should :-) But in this there's no real reason why the MoS shouldn't be followed (and here as well, which I might change in a minute :-)
- I'd probably put Deportivo La Coruña rather than just Deportivo
- Scoreline columns should be much narrower, the same width as each other, and centred. Could just head them Home and Away, and leave out "result".
- Footnote E would do better as a * or similar symbol in the table key, or as a note above the table as here
- Record by competition. Numeric columns should be either lined up arithmetically (like in player infoboxes) or centred. And the widths need sorting out
- Footnotes C and D need sources.
- Refs currently 3 & 4. If you put
publisher=Aston Villa F.C.
, it'd be both consistent and informative - Ref 12. Write out IFFHS in full, so we ignorant readers know what it is
- Ref 14 has FA, ref 40 has Football Association (FA). If you're going to abbreviate, do first occurrence in full then abbreviate later ones.
- General refs. Spell out Aston Villa F.C., not AVFC.
- Do you use Martensson's database as a reference still, or have you just not removed mention of it?
hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from the previous FLC :-) The club article MoS recommends including second places while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. So although you wouldn't include runners-up spots in the corresponding section of the main club article, I do think it would be appropriate to include them here.
- Fewest points in season. the 29 pts one, prefer repeating "and in the 1969-70 season..." rather than just the "/"
- You could include the pretty attendance graph from the Villa Park article
- I have done all but three of those. I don't think that the runners-up are neccessary or relevant here. I think they would devalue the "winners" that are there at the moment. It might get a bit crowded. I couldn't fit the image in, it kept wrapping and clashing, and it looked out of place underneath the matches sub-heading. That and the "/": I have kept that in as frankly, I prefer them and think they look better. Personal opinion though. Thanks for all your time reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- following on from above.
- Not convinced about the runners-ups being irrelevant
- Perhaps add a note at the foot of the (appearances) tables to say what "Other competitions" includes. Done, but it'd be clearer in normal font size.
- (in the international section) Countries should be linked to their football team, not the country itself. You missed this one
- I have done all but three of those. I don't think that the runners-up are neccessary or relevant here. I think they would devalue the "winners" that are there at the moment. It might get a bit crowded. I couldn't fit the image in, it kept wrapping and clashing, and it looked out of place underneath the matches sub-heading. That and the "/": I have kept that in as frankly, I prefer them and think they look better. Personal opinion though. Thanks for all your time reviewing this. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flags column (Villa in Europe). Done, but I changed it to use the {{flag}} template instead of {{flagicon}}, this generates the country name automatically, which makes it easier for future updaters to follow (and widened the table to stop things wrapping); if you don't like it, please change it back.
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I saw your edits to the article: they look great thankyou! I missed the international ones, done now, removed the small text. I am not convinced about the runners up, I don't see the need for it and I haven't been persuaded... Thanks for your time. RegardsWoody (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, assuming you decide whether or not a player's name should be wikilinked in his image caption, and de-link Mellberg or link Young accordingly. well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found various sources for the Curtis Davies transfer, quoting the fee variously as 8, 9 and 10 million (for the references, see the Curtis Davies article itself or West Bromwich Albion F.C.). If you're saying that the source quoting 8 million is a more reliable figure then you should say why that source is more reliable. --Jameboy (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See these diffs. Essentially, I have removed him from the table because the sources differ so much. I don't think it is correct to include him in the table given the speculative nature of the fee. Milner is more certain as the media were unequivocally stating that his was the club's record transfer, so that is on a much surer footing. (Sorry about the tardiness of the reply, I was away for the week). Regards. Woody (talk) 21:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a few more things I've spotted, having looked at it more thoroughly.
- For the youngest & oldest player, would it be possible to mention which competition each record was set in?
- "From" (club) column in "Record transfer fees paid" needs consistent alignment (I'd suggest left-aligned)
- Adding a results section for European football only seems like a strange inclusion and something I probably wouldn't expect to see here. It seems kind of arbitrary to include results only from Europe and not from domestic football (space issues aside). Does it need to be there?
- Returning to the transfers, I'm not convinced by your reasons for including Milner but not Davies. The reference in the Milner article (from The Guardian) gives Milner's fee as £12m, which differs from the £10m in the footnote here, so I don't see it as being any more certain. Whether quoted as a record fee or not, is still undisclosed. I think you should include both Milner and Davies in the table (with footnotes) or omit both (with explanatory text/footnotes). --Jameboy (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done the first one, the second one is already done (is it not done for you? It renders correctly as far as I can see), I have removed Milner from the list and wrote about him in the intro para for that section. In terms of Europe, I feel that it is important to have them listed, Europe is above the other competitions in terms of standards and is well respected and wanted in terms of information. I know it is otherstuffexists, but it is included in other FLs. I also note that this has already been promoted, so any further comments should probably go on the article talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - With all the above issues accounted for, I can see no reason why this doesn't meet the Featured List Criteria, quality work. Sunderland06 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:25, 14 September 2008 [7].
List of Björk awards
Gary King (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment about Bjork MTV nominations. Do you have any refs to support the 2008 noms? Because on the 2008 MTV awards article she does not appear in the Best Female video field. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Infobox has 48/11, lead has 45/11.
- Personal opinion but the whole of the first para just mentions in passing she's a BRIT award winner, the rest of the para is about her discography. Second para starts with album sales (again, not really awards) before becoming more relevant. I'm not suggesting removing all this useful info but the lead just doesn't seem all that relevant to this list? Perhaps expand to talk a little more about the more significant awards?
- Ref 14 can have a
date
added, and the work is Daily Telegraph. - Are Brit awards called Brit (per the publisher you provide in links 6 to 8) or BRIT awards per your lead and relevant section?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done them all. I assume that BRIT (all uppercase) is the official naming but over time it's evolved to "Brit"; there's a discussion here about it. I'm trying to be consistent by having it all uppercase for now. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Gary, did I miss something? The publisher in refs 6 to 8 is called Brit and the rest of the article uses BRIT. Doesn't look consistent to me! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary, see WT:FLC#Laziness/repetition in names. Perhaps consider renaming the article? No other comments Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment
Once again for the MTV awards. Is she the award recipient for "Bachelorette" and "Its Oh So Quiet"?, I know that Donovan Davidson and Michael Rooney won for each, respectively and for "All Is Full of Love" the Glasswork team won Special Effects. But I think she only received the award for Breakthrough Video, is this correct?.- For the rest of the list, congratulations, very good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great job. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Interesting work. Cannibaloki 14:59, 14 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [9].
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2001
I am submiting this list for the FL status because I think is ready to achieve it. Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Ricky Martin,[3][4] Marco Antonio Solís,[5] Conjunto Primavera[6] and Los Tigres del Norte[7] hit the top spot for second time on their careers, respectively. - "the" second time. FIXED!
Other than that it looks good in my eyes, great work.--SRX 01:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - great, meets C2 & C4 are satisfied and so is the rest of the FL Criteria.--SRX 14:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Another great list. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 8 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [10].
Moons of Jupiter
Major contributors: user:Nergaal, user:RandomCritic, user:Kwamikagami
I believe that this passes the criteria for a featured list. Comments are welcomed. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest a withdrawal. There is a peer review for this page that was opened on August 31st, at least wait for some comments over there before nominating this page here. The talk page of this page is a mess as well.--Crzycheetah 01:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what those two have to do with a FLC. Read the FLC criteria again before giving suggestions. The PR was closed before this nomination was started, and I did not submit the the talkpage for FLC , but the list itself. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I suggest withdrawing and placing this page at PR again; get some comments there, then re-nominate here.--Crzycheetah 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer reviews only work if someone responds to them. What can someone do if peer reviews go unresponded? Serendipodous 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer Reviews are supposed to be a central place to gather reviews, meaning the person who places an article up for Peer Reviews still has the responsibility of actually finding reviewers; they can do this by contacting people they have worked with, or perusing the Volunteers List at the Peer Review page. The Volunteers List separates people by the topics they are interested in reviewing. Gary King (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And User:Ruhrfisch is doing a damned good job on trying to ensure all PRs have at least one major set of comments within 3 days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- to gary: I already contacted people who could have been interested in this at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System even before posting the PR and I still did not get any responses and the PR was open for about 4 days. Nergaal (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume Rambling Man's suggestions below have resolved this problem. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer Reviews are supposed to be a central place to gather reviews, meaning the person who places an article up for Peer Reviews still has the responsibility of actually finding reviewers; they can do this by contacting people they have worked with, or perusing the Volunteers List at the Peer Review page. The Volunteers List separates people by the topics they are interested in reviewing. Gary King (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer reviews only work if someone responds to them. What can someone do if peer reviews go unresponded? Serendipodous 11:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I suggest withdrawing and placing this page at PR again; get some comments there, then re-nominate here.--Crzycheetah 03:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what those two have to do with a FLC. Read the FLC criteria again before giving suggestions. The PR was closed before this nomination was started, and I did not submit the the talkpage for FLC , but the list itself. Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Lead image is too small to make any sense out of it.
- Caption is a fragment so remove the full stop.
- "Dozens of much smaller bodies that revolve ...." - not 100% clear that this "smaller" is with reference to the Galilean moons.
- "starting with the end of the 19th century" - you mean their discovery started at the end of the 19th century?
- "At least another 14 small bodies have been discovered over the recent years raising the total number moons of Jupiter to 63.."
- At least 14 more? so is the total 63 or "at least 63"?
- Why is 63 in bold?
- "span over a wide range" - vary widely?
- "from the largest object in the Solar System outside the Sun and the eight planets (Ganymede)" - I'd rework as "from Ganymede, the largest object..."
- "that barely have 1 km in diameter" - "that are barely 1 km (x miles) in diameter" - i.e. reword a bit and convert for imperial unit guys and gals.
- "3000 times more (almost three years)"
- 3,000
- Reinforce earth years here (since you mentioned Jovian days just before).
- "...that Jupiter spins (retrograde rotation)." - rephrase so it's something like "...spins, a motion referred to as retrograde rotation."
- Why is Galilean moons in the caption in italics?
- "...in 1974,[11] By the .." -full stop needed.
- "time Voyagers reached Jupiter, a number of 13 moons" - explain Voyagers for the non-expert, and "a number of" is redundant.
- "but lost until 2000." - needs explanation.
- "and average 3 kilometres in diameter, with the largest having barely 9 km across" - average of 3km (and convert), and "largest being just 9km (convert) across"
- "The Galilean moons and their orbits around Jupiter." - no need for italics or full stop.
- "and instead being referred in the" - and instead they were referred to in... as..
- Avoid "etc."
- " in the 20th, " 20th what?
- "..while the rest of the moons, numbered, usually..." - "...moons, usually numbered..."
- "overwhelming majority" - peacock/pov
- What is IAU? Expand it before using the abbreviation.
- "V-XIII" - use the en-dash for ranges, not the hyphen.
- " from XXXIV (Euporie) on are..." - on is redundant.
- "Some asteroids share the same names as moons of Jupiter: 9 Metis, 38 Leda, 52 Europa, 85 Io, 113 Amalthea, 239 Adrastea. Two more asteroids previously shared the names of Jovian moons until spelling differences were made permanent by the IAU: Ganymede and asteroid 1036 Ganymed; and Callisto and asteroid 204 Kallisto." - no references for these.
- Groups section could do with being made more prose than bullet points.
- Did you say anywhere how long a Jovian day is in terms of Earth days?
- The point with the Jovian days was to say that they spin faster than the planet itself, not that they take x hours. I guess it is not obvious what I meant to say so I am open to suggestions. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just worth putting into context what a Jovian day is in Earth hours I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point with the Jovian days was to say that they spin faster than the planet itself, not that they take x hours. I guess it is not obvious what I meant to say so I am open to suggestions. Nergaal (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this article in BritEng (disk) or USEng (favorite)? Whatever you choose, be consistent.
- Order citations numerically unless there's a really good reason not to.
- I am not sure which ones are you referring to. If you are talking about the ones in the table, then the latter have a lower number because they were already used in the text (i.e. this is what reflist does). Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant [27][17][28] - you can reorder the references in the wiki markup so it says [17][27][28]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure which ones are you referring to. If you are talking about the ones in the table, then the latter have a lower number because they were already used in the text (i.e. this is what reflist does). Nergaal (talk) 02:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "... is "tight",..." - why in quotes? who said this?
- "are so far believed to be each isolated in their own group" - doesn't read well at all.
- "Pronunciacion" is not English.
- Is this pronunciation guide IPA? It doesn't say.
- " from shortest to longest" - not when it's resorted - drop this sentence.
- Caption "...The position on the vertical axis indicates its orbital inclination—he satellites..." - he satellites? Plus this caption is way too long.
- No need to bold Io, Ganymede in the table. If you want to obey WP:COLOR, I'd add an asterisk or dagger on these.
- "127 690" - should be "127,690" etc.
- Diameter is usually a single value - so "60×40×34" etc needs explaining.
- This has not been noted (i.e. even a footnote would work). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is discovered left aligned while eccentricity right aligned and diameter central aligned?
- Sortable tables need to relink wikilinks on each occasion as they could be first in the list depending on how they're sorted.
- Order and Label, what do they mean?
- text says that they are ordered by semi-major axis. label is somewhat explained in the text. The problem is that I don't know how to make these clear without having a huge title in those columns. Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnotes could be used for this purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- text says that they are ordered by semi-major axis. label is somewhat explained in the text. The problem is that I don't know how to make these clear without having a huge title in those columns. Nergaal (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a negative orbital period needs explanation for non-experts, and should there be a space between the minus sign and the value e.g. - 1077.02?
- What does ? mean in the Group?
- Are all 5 external links necessary?
- Support—I see that it's been cleaned up a bit from the comments above, but my first thought was "who did this page"? Excellent work; hope to see more of you here! Tony (talk) 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs). Excellent work. Just a few comments:
"Only 8 of Jupiter's moons are regular satellites, with prograde and nearly circular orbits that are not greatly inclined with respect to Jupiter's equatorial plane." I find "only" a bit POV."Both physical and orbital characteristics of the moons vary widely." How about: "The moons' physical and orbital characteristics vary widely.""The practice was that newly discovered moons of Jupiter to be named after lovers and favorites of the mythological Jupiter (Zeus), and since 2004, also after their descendants." Missing a word, I think."This is currently the most of any planet in the Solar System, but additional tiny, undiscovered moons may exist." Per Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Precise language, "currently" is not preferred. Use "as of so-and-so year..."
Great work overall. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [11].
List of Olympic records in athletics
It's been a while for me to try a list but since the 'lympics are done and dusted now, this list is suitably stable (well, at least for four more years or unless a doping scandal hits...) and I've enjoyed researching it. The biggest challenge was to find up-to-date references for the older records, but a combination of IAAF and Olympic references have been used where required. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I don't think the key at the top on the article should be in small text. It is hard to read.
- Agreed, that wasn't my idea. Fixed.
- I don't like the large white space between the men's record and the women's record
- Well I didn't like the way you'd rearranged the images, if the white space is too much then I'll remove one of the images.
- I just want to help. You can arrange it any way you want.—Chris! ct 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean to appear ungrateful and rude, I'm sorry! I've removed some of the images so no massive white space issues remain. Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to help. You can arrange it any way you want.—Chris! ct 19:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I didn't like the way you'd rearranged the images, if the white space is too much then I'll remove one of the images.
- The last sentence in the lead should have a reference
- Not really - it's obvious from the table and each record there is cited. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the key at the top on the article should be in small text. It is hard to read.
—Chris! ct 00:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great list. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
The athletics events which… - I'd use commas in this sentence- Not 100% convinced but I've added them - see what you think.
- Can you name the 24th event that men do, but women don't?
- Not that straight forward as men do decathlon, women do heptathlon, and men do the 50km walk which has no women's analogy. Any way you can think of making that snappy enough to read well in the lead? The information is all in the table after all.
- you can squeeze this information somewhere in that third paragraph to save readers' time. That paragraph is quite short, anyway.--Crzycheetah 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've squeezed the info in, hopefully appropriately. Let me know what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you can squeeze this information somewhere in that third paragraph to save readers' time. That paragraph is quite short, anyway.--Crzycheetah 08:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that straight forward as men do decathlon, women do heptathlon, and men do the 50km walk which has no women's analogy. Any way you can think of making that snappy enough to read well in the lead? The information is all in the table after all.
…broken but illegally - Maybe, it's British grammar that I don't understand, but it sounds a little oxymoronic to me.- Not convinced British grammar has a part to play- the records were broken illegally. But, since it sounds like it doesn't appeal to the US-ear, I'll have a fiddle with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that men run 110m hurdles while women run 100m hurdles can be mentioned in the lead.
- See above - men do the decathlon and women do the heptathlon as well - there are a few of these and I'm not sure how much relevance that detail has in the lead about the Olympic records. Can you suggest an elegant way of introducing these ideas? I'll see if I can develop something... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the men's table, you have the steeplechase after 400 hurdles while in the women's table, it's listed after 20km walk. How about consistency?- How about that. Probably how I inherited it. The table is sortable anyway, but I'll fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The ♦ row would be better italicized.
- I don't like italics really. This is subjective - I had toyed with adding colour in the results column along with the diamond to emphasise the record, would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion, I meant the diamond note "denotes a performance…". That one-row table looks unusual in the lead.
- Okay, first off Gary made it 95% font size, which I undid, now he's put it in a table, which you want to undo and make italics. It's turning into a micro-edit war! I'll see what I can do to appease all editors. Cheers for the clarification nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully where we are now works for everyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, first off Gary made it 95% font size, which I undid, now he's put it in a table, which you want to undo and make italics. It's turning into a micro-edit war! I'll see what I can do to appease all editors. Cheers for the clarification nevertheless. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the confusion, I meant the diamond note "denotes a performance…". That one-row table looks unusual in the lead.
- I don't like italics really. This is subjective - I had toyed with adding colour in the results column along with the diamond to emphasise the record, would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- --Crzycheetah 03:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- …1988, Canadian sprinter - This sentence needs at least one more comma somewhere, preferably before "but".
- Another comma added! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That 3rd paragraph remains very short. Maybe, you could expand/merge?
- I've expanded it a little with some more detail on Beamon's record. Is it okay? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- …1988, Canadian sprinter - This sentence needs at least one more comma somewhere, preferably before "but".
--Crzycheetah 21:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Just wondering, why link no event in the 1st para, but link long jump in the 3rd para?
- Unlinked all, they're all linked in the tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Sorry to join in the edit-war :-) Suggest repeating the "♦ denotes a performance..." directly above both Men's records and Women's records tables. If the reader goes straight to the Women's records from the TOC they miss it.
- Key repeated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would Record be a more appropriate column heading than Result?
- Yes, and that's what it is now, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the flags in the Games column necessary? and are they MoS-compliant?
- No. And you're right, they fall foul of the MOS under "Help the reader rather than decorate" in my opnion, so they've gone. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Struway! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "Olympic records in individual events have been achieved at each Olympiad". Is that a fact? Struway2 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost certainly but you're right in your implication, ie. can I prove it? Not easily and it'll end up being a bit OR-ish so I've rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "Olympic records in individual events have been achieved at each Olympiad". Is that a fact? Struway2 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, note 10 needs a publication date, and you may want to clarify the first the time of using that Beijing 2008 is the official website of the 2008 games. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I would fully expect from the FL director, an exemplary job! Great work, Rambling Man! Support from Killervogel5
- Three minor things for TRM's consideration: (a) inconsistency in whether names are wikilinked in captions; (b) can you avoid using both "records" and "recorded" (set?) in Bolt's caption? (c) should "Decathlon" be given a capital "D" in the caption when "high jump" isn't similarly treated? BencherliteTalk 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor perhaps, but necessary. All fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; support. BencherliteTalk 11:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor perhaps, but necessary. All fixed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why not support an article that has nothing wrong with it and meets the FL criteria. -- K. Annoyomous24[c] 20:04, 13 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 05:22, 14 September 2008 [12].
Nashville Sounds seasons
I believe this list meets all the criteria to become a featured list. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I peer reviewed this list and am proud to support it. Support from Killervogel5
Comments
What makes http://www.thebaseballcube.com/index.shtml a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE - All Baseball Cube references have been replaced. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "This list documents season-by-season records of the team from its inaugural campaign through 2008." not keen on this at all as a main sentence in the opening para of the lead - perhaps as a mini-key, like "statistics correct as of the end of the 2008 season".
- Expansion team probably has a wikilink which is useful for non-baseball/US sport franchise experts.
- You link Triple-A but not Double-A. Why not?
- "was marked by much success," - POV.
- " They won three " vs "It moved to " - be consistent with your pluralising.
- " the same mediocrity" - POV.
- Avoid the small text in the key.
- What's PS?
- Why is Record and Win% capitalised after PS?
- I think an explanation as to what a MLB affiliate is would be very useful to non-experts.
- What does "t-6th" mean? And "t-3rd"... etc
- 2006 -"Clinched American North Division title" while it appears they tied?
- What's PCL? and AA?
- Why is Franchise Totals capitalised?
- "Regular Season" vs "Post-season" - consistent caps/hyphens etc please.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE. Triple-A and Double-A are both linked. Added note for affiliates and 2006 div title. I added abbreviations for the leagues (SL, AA, PCL) after the first time they were mentioned in the league. Is that OK, or do I need to do something else? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Symbols need to be used along with the colours in the table to aid visually impaired, who will not be able to recognise the colours. NapHit (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you mean; but, each row already tells what if any titles the team won. Wouldn't symbols would be redundant? -NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that a colour blind user would not be able to tell the colours, apart therefore the table to them would mean nothing, including the symbols would rectify this problem NapHit (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE - Greek characters (αβγδε) added to aid the color blind. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that a colour blind user would not be able to tell the colours, apart therefore the table to them would mean nothing, including the symbols would rectify this problem NapHit (talk) 15:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I changed the symbols to more commonly used ones, great list well done NapHit (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 15:45, 10 September 2008 [13].
List of Liverpool F.C. statistics and records
previous FLC (22:08, 28 February 2008)
I feel that this list meets the criteria necessary to become a featured list, after a peer review and addressing the issues from the previous nomination. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I think you mean Liverpool Football Club as the publisher, not plain Liverpool, which would imply that the city is the publisher of the websites.
- Done
- What makes the following sites reliable:
- This is the most reliable site for Liverpool F.C. info, the content is updated regularly and all content is checked by the official Liverpool F.C. historian Eric Doig, which I think makes the site very reliable.
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does http://www.lfchistory.net/aboutus_articles_view.asp?article_Id=112 cover the above?
- To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 5 and 9, the Liverpool All-Time Greats book, needs to list the author and date of publication as well as page numbers. It also appears that the ISBN is not correct according to Google Books and World Cat.
- Changed the book to a better book
Current ref 31 needs page numbers
- Done
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Liverpool F.C. are an" - would be better to say "Liverpool Football Club".
- The lead says the statistics are correct as of 30 August 2008, but the most appearances table says 11 May 2008. I'd say the date should be removed from the table and stick with the one in the lead.
- I'd consider putting this in italics, to help show that it's not a piece of information relating to the list.
- Links are available for some Community Shields, e.g. 2001 and 2006.
- "Ted Doig" links to "Ned Doig", so this should be pipelinked or displayed as Ned.
- "Oldest debutant" is included, but "Youngest debutant" isn't?
- Youngest player is basically youngest debutant
- Of course...! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote [d] doesn't seem to work for me.
- "32 seconds, against Arsenal" - full stop needed.
- "Rush also holds" - I'd replace "Rush" with "He", there seems to be a lot of Rushs in those few sentences.
- "Top scorers" - could be renamed "Top goalscorers" to keep consistent with the "Goalscorers" section.
- Footnotes [c] and [d] should also be included in this table.
- Could a few more records be included in the "International" section? Like first capped player, most World Cup appearances etc.
- I would include this information but I can't find it so unless someone else can, the section will have to stay the same
- This will be able to give the most World Cup appearances. Do you think the Complete Record book will include any details on internationals? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Should mention who Roger Hunt, Ian Callaghan and Gerry Byrne won the World Cup with.
- "First manager(s)" - I'd change this to First managers, as we know the club started with two managers.
- Firsts - "First league match"?
- Wins - Bit more consistency needed with how the records are presented, e.g. "Record victory" then "Biggest league win" - from "Record" to "Biggest" and "victory" to "win". I'd use "Record" and "win" personally.
- Defeats - "Heaviest" - I'd use "Record".
- Goals - Could you include what division the team was in?
- Attendances - no highest league attendance?
- "Record lowest attendance" - is this in the league?
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Matt, I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 19:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC) More comments Few more things I've spotted.[reply]
- "Most overall appearances" - I'd say "Most appearances in all competitions" is more suitable.
- "Most League appearances" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
- "Most consecutive League goals scored at Anfield:" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
- "Most first-team goals" - probably "Most goals in all competitions".
- "Most goals in a season" - I'd probably move this after "Most European goals", its current position seems a bit strange.
- I guess Pead doesn't have Liverpool's first international?
- The first player capped for England was the first international
- I think it would probably make more sense to move "Most World Cup appearances while a Liverpool player" and "Most World Cup goals while a Liverpool player" after "First World Cup winners" - it would make more sense to show the first appearance at a World Cup first.
- "Dietmar Hamann, (Germany, in 2002)" - should probably do away with the parenthesis to be consistent with the rest of the list.
- I'd probably change "a friendly" to "a friendly match" to be clearer.
- Do you have any idea of what the club's first match was, so you could add a "First match" bit?
- First match at Anfield was the first match, so changed to first match
- Was the "First competitive match at Anfield" the club's first match in the Lancashire League? If so, I'd probably display it as that.
- The "First League Cup match" happened before the "First European match" so should be displayed first.
- Other lists of this type have a "European statistics" section at the bottom, so what I'd recommend you do is create a section under this title and use the Main template to link to Liverpool F.C. in Europe.
- Ah, but I see you're well on the way with this.
- Yeh but that table is going in the main article not this list, so I think the link to the article should suffice
Mattythewhite (talk) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments Nearly there.
- Beside the divisions that the honours were won, I'd mention what level that was, e.g. "(level 1)".
- Find it strange that the "UEFA Champions League record win" is included, but there's no "UEFA Champions League record defeat"?
- The only reason that record is there is because it represents the biggest win in the Champions League not Liverpool's, I can remove it if you want. just think it's particularly notable that Liverpool hold the record win in the Champions League NapHit (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I'd unlink it, as it seems a bit strange being the only competition wikilinked in this section. And maybe you could also add a footnote saying how it's the highest ever Champions Leauge victory, with a reference? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd shorten it down to just "Champions League" too.
- And why only the Champions League? Why not any other competitions?
- Wins says "Most league wins in a season" and Defeats says "Most defeats in a season". Is the latter for the league only?
- "Highest League attendance" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments Last few things.
- I'd seperate "Intercontinental Cup and FIFA Club World Cup" into seperate sections if they were different competitions.
- "the records for League and" - "League" doesn't need to be capitalised.
- "First capped player for England" - I'd be tempted to just label him as being the "First capped player" and mention him appearing for England in the text beside.
- "UEFA Champions League record win" - should be reworded "Record UEFA Champions League win" for consistency.
- "Ever-present refers to the player playing every minute of every match in the league and cup competitions" - full stop needed.
Support It's great to finally be able to support this nomination, well done! Mattythewhite (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Fastest hat-trick: add date for consistency
- International: for Hughes and Hamann, take out brackets and say "Laurie Hughes, for England..."
- The dates in the transfer tables were automatically changed to U.S. format in a slightly premature implementation of changes to the date-sorting templates (you wouldn't have noticed if you have date preferences set). I've added the parameters to restore the day-month year format (while I was there, I also restored the transfer fees for Torres, Crouch and Keane to the sourced values)
- "Longest serving" manager by matches needs a hyphen
- Firsts: wikilink "a friendly" to something
- Rekjavik needs a "y" after the "e"
- Attendances: Wolves should be spelt out in full
- Would it be helpful for the league attendances to add the division?
- Are you sure note G is in the right place?
- Notes: maybe repeat the reference for note E
hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Struway, I've dealt with them all NapHit (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also (and having said the same elsewhere, it wouldn't be fair not to): The club article MoS recommends including second places in an honours section, while accepting that For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places. So, particularly as Liverpool F.C.#Honours does find room for runners-ups, think you ought to include them here as well. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Wolfmother awards Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/All-NBA Team
- 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 User:The Rambling Man 19:07, 8 September 2008 [14].
Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Voice-Over Performance
I'd like to address a few things. First, you will notice that some of the references do not cover everything in the table. However, such things are covered by the general ref to the official Emmy awards page. It does not allow you to link to individual pages, so one must do a search for the proper category (hence the individual citations). As well, I was forced to use Newsbank articles for some of the older categories. This is because 1) the afore mentioned problem 2) The table looked weird not having citations for every row and 3) have you ever tried finding free online articles from 1993? As well, I would be willing to merge the TV show & episode columns or remove the episode column completely. Have fun reviewing, and all concerns will be addressed by me. -- Scorpion0422 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I think that the table is overlinked, it should be enough to have one link to The Simpsons and not have the rest of the list linked to the same name. Also to the network Fox, the same case. Jaespinoza (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - name column needs to sort by last name. --Golbez (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The_Plain_Dealer is an ambigous link. — Dispenser 23:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it would be nice to see it expanded a bit, if possible. How/why was it created? Was there any predecessor? Is there a reason why it wasn't awarded in those two years? In the lede, it'd be nice if some more detail was given in the second paragraph. Right now it seems like it's really promoting the Simpsons. For example, maybe expand on people winning for live-action roles, since you mention it once in the first paragraph, then don't mention it again. Small little quibble: It is awarded to a performer - the first year was awarded to six people from the same show. Perhaps that could be re-worded. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks okay. Just one thing worries me: Some entries in the episode column are blank. I'm guessing some such as Unforgivable Blackness don't apply, so inserting an "N/A" or emdash would be a good way to show that it's not simply an oversight. However, the ones for Seth McFarlane in 2000, Hank Azaria in 1998, and Ja'net Du Bois in 99 should all have the episodes (since others winners from the same series have the episodes stated). At the moment it appears to be incomplete, and that is all that's stopping me from supporting. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Few things, series usually have episode names and some on here are missing like for Family Guy, which I know has episode names. Special episodes should also have a name, which I think should be researched as without it makes the table really unbalanced.
- Another thing, you spell PBS in it's trademarked form, yet you spell FOX "Fox" and not in it's trademarked form of (FOX).
SRX 14:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, I don't think they had nominations for individual episodes during that period. However, I decided to just remove the column for now. As for FOX vs. Fox, there have been many debates about it, and as far as I can tell, Fox is the most accepted version. -- Scorpion0422 16:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:01, 6 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 12:32, 7 September 2008 [15].
List of submissions to the 72nd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film
This is a self-nomination. The layout of the list is identical to that used in other similar lists that were recently promoted to FL. BomBom (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think its a little too identical? The first paragraph of the lead has been copied and pasted from List of submissions to the 74th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. I agree to base it on another list, but don't copy it directly. You should change it a little, even if it is just wording you change. Qst (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I think this is a very good page. On other Foreign Film Submission lists, the editor has elected to remove interesting trivia and information that might be of interest to people who are looking up this page. The header of this article includes interesting information specific to the year in question, making it more interesting and distinguishes it from the other "list" pages. Adtran - Talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great gob, Jaespinoza (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupportPlease avoid parentheses in the lead. (and so far only) & (which is spoken in parts of Nepal)In the "original title" column, there are several inconsistencies:- In the "Bhutan" row, there should be Hindi letters, as well, just like the "India" row
- In the "France" row, you're missing the Russian transliteration
- In the "Nepal" row, why is there a French translation? It says that the film was in Tibetan, not French. So, where is the Tibetan translation?
- In the "Russia" row, you have the Russian translation, but the film is in German, so there should be a German translation, as well.
In the "Vietnam" row, you have two translations in one line, shouldn't it be done similar to the "Nepal" row?
--Crzycheetah 01:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The parentheses in the lead section have been removed. The original titles of the French, Russian and Vietnamese entries have all been fixed. The only things "missing" are the original titles of the Bhutanese entry The Cup and the Nepalese entry Himalaya, both of which are in the Tibetan language. There's not much I can do with regard to this. The article has been placed for weeks in the Articles needing Tibetan script or text category. Moreover, I have checked the list of Wikipedians who speak Tibetan, and all of them only have a basic understanding of it, so they can't be of much help. Anyway, please note that a film's original title is not necessarily in the language that is predominantly used in the script. For instance, the original title of the film Himalaya, which was merely submitted by Nepal but was in fact a predominantly French production with a French director, is Himalaya - l'enfance d'un chef. This is the title that appears onscreen as well as on the film's promotional posters. I don't think anyone has ever bothered to find out what the "Tibetan title" of the film was, just as no one has ever bothered to find out what the "Aramaic title" or the "Latin title" of The Passion of the Christ was. Neither The Cup's official website nor Himalaya's official website contain any Tibetan title, so it's really not that important. BomBom (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Korn awards Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Natasha Bedingfield awards
- 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 User:The Rambling Man 12:20, 7 September 2008 [16].
List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting pitchers
I am nominating the list of Opening Day Seattle Mariners pitchers. I have chosen not to make the table sortable, as there are multiple stretches where the ballpark stays the same, and I didn't think that listing Kingdome or Safeco Field 5 or 6 time in a row would be visually appealing. The list is comprehensive for every season of the Mariners, including 2008. Additions will be required in 2009 and so forth and will be added as announced. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments for now,Lists should be in earliest-to-latest chronological orderThe "Decision" column should be explained a little more. What does "no decision" mean?- Where's the * for the ADLS guys?
"Versus" should be "Opponent"- Since you made the table sortable, which is great, you need to use {{sortname}} template in order to sort the pitchers by their last names.
- All "opponents" and "locations" should be wikilinked because of the sortable table.
- Who are the Seattle Mariners? A couple of sentences are needed to explain who or what the Mariners are.
- The last two images would be better placed under the Pitchers section and an "upright" parameter should be added per MOS:IMAGES
- The "years" in the table are linked to "YEAR in baseball", wouldn't it be better if they were linked to "YEAR Seattle Mariners season"?
--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All stats in the lead should be sourced
- All of the stats from the lead are just generated from adding the stats listed in the table below. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you still need to provide a reference to avoid violating WP:OR--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would putting in a ref that said data taken from info referenced from tables be acceptable? --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 21:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you still need to provide a reference to avoid violating WP:OR--Crzycheetah 20:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the stats from the lead are just generated from adding the stats listed in the table below. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be good if the image captions had different info than what we may already know from the table
- Done --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All stats in the lead should be sourced
- Support Looks much better. The only remaining suggestion I have is to merge the last two paragraphs of the lead. Good job!--Crzycheetah 08:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- US date format: comma required, please.
- Read MOSNUM on spelling out numbers; needs a consistent boundary.
- Past, not last.
- I haven't the knowledge to tell whether the lead should be bulkier than this. Tony (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I find a lot of info. in the lead to be confusing to a lay person (I understand it fairly well as a fan, but there are a few areas with issues).:
Are the trivia in the captions necessary? How does Randy Johnson striking out Wade Boggs relate to the article? Or Moyer's 2001 20-win season? This is especially unnecessary since neither of the two were the opening day starters of the year that the piece of trivia took place.- Was requested above --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the captions per Wikipedia:Caption (and a general preference). Take a look at a Featured List like List of New York Jets head coaches or List of Philadelphia Phillies managers. All the captions used in the list are describing the subject and his role.
And thats what I had, I had something like "xxx the Opening Day starting pitcher for the xxx and xxx seasons", but I was told to make it more interesting --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)they have been reverted to their original cites, stating which years they were the Opening Day starting pitchers. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 07:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the captions per Wikipedia:Caption (and a general preference). Take a look at a Featured List like List of New York Jets head coaches or List of Philadelphia Phillies managers. All the captions used in the list are describing the subject and his role.
- Was requested above --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"have in the past thirty–two seasons have used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers." Confusing sentence here.The Randy Johnson sentence has a few too many commas for my taste. It feels like an info. overload.The July 15, 1999 start for Moyer probably should not be in there. This list is for Opening Day of the season, not the opening of the new field."Overall, the Mariners have a record of six wins and four losses at the Kingdome..." This should probably have a "on Opening Day" in here (or "have an Opening Day record"), otherwise it reads like an overall for all of baseball instead of just this one day thing.- "and their Opening Day record for these three seasons was two wins and no losses between Randy Johnson (1995), Jeff Fassero (1997) and Freddy García (2001), all of which were won in Seattle." This needs to refer to the record of the starters. The "their" is referring to the subject, the Mariners, while the stats that follow are referring to the three starters. Metros (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworked --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That created another vague issue. It now states that "these three...have an Opening Day record of two wins and no losses." Their record is greater than that, but you need to reword it to reflect that you're talking about having a 2-0 record in those three particular seasons on Opening Day. Metros (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworked --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the issues I have are fixed, but I don't think I'll be supporting. I don't feel like this is featured content, but I can't quite put a finger on/describe why. Metros (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Lead image should have
upright
in it. - " have in the past thirty–two seasons have had fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers" - this is not good English.
- Is Opening Day always capitalized? If so, check image captions etc for consistency.
- Starting Pitcher should be pitcher in the table heading.
- "Made it to the ALDS" - doesn't read particularly encyclopedically to me.
- Per WP:MOS#COLORS, don't use colours alone to designate a particular property, you need an asterisk, dagger etc as well as the colouring in the table.
- "Mariners record" shouldn't that be "Mariners' record"?
- "starts with a total of six starts," -spot the redundancies - "starts with six" says the same thing.
- Prefer to see reference column centrally aligned.
- "on Opening Day, compared to two wins and three losses at Safeco Field on Opening Day" - Opening Day overdose.
- Not sure of the relevance of the opening day stats and then going on to qualify for the playoffs - presumably some huge number of games are played in the interim?
- Lead image should have
- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals (current ref 4)
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Killervogel5
- "The Seattle Mariners, a Major League Baseball team, in the American League West division, based out of Seattle, Washington, have in the past thirty–two seasons have used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers." - very confusing, reads like a run-on, some seriously incorrect comma usage, grammatically speaking. Consider rewording to the following: "The Seattle Mariners, a Major League Baseball franchise in the American League West division, has used fifteen different Opening Day starting pitchers in its thirty–two seasons in Seattle, Washington." - keep all links, of course, and link franchise to the appropriate section in Professional sports league organization. Also, thirty-two, while incorrect with an en-dash, should actually be 32.
- All numbers higher than ten (especially fifteen, written several times) should be written as numerals (15, etc).
- "Randy Johnson holds the Mariners' record of Opening Day starts with six starts," - saying starts twice is redundant, remove the second.
- Any reason why the records in the lead are all written out, i.e., two wins and no losses rather than 2–0?
- MOSNUM is why I wrote them out, and I was told to keep all my numbers consistant rather than having small numbers written out and large numbers as just numbers. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be that as it may, it is inconsistent with other featured lists. Additionally, with an article that has this short of a lead, many written out numbers looks like someone trying to stretch the text. I am, of course, not implying that it was your intent to do so; however, it may appear as such to certain eyes. I still believe it needs to be changed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MOSNUM is why I wrote them out, and I was told to keep all my numbers consistant rather than having small numbers written out and large numbers as just numbers. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it 0 wins and 2 losses so that a lay person could appreciate the information. Yes, I know what 0–2 is, but not everyone knows what 0–2 is. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully understand your reasoning; however, saying "wins, losses, wins, losses" again and again is redundant. Therefore, I've disambiguated at the first occurrence (10 wins, 11 losses (10–11)) and it should no longer be an issue. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral from Killervogel5
- Comments
- Overall looks good but I don't like how the key looks like, the word decision should be removed and the key should read from left to right, i.e. (left column) W| (right column) Win.
- IMO, because in the lead it states how many times pitchers have been the ODP, multiple appearances should be noted, like within parenthesis i.e. Glenn Abbot (2).
- Done --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite, I didn't mean the lead, I meant in the table, it wont be needed in the lead.--SRX 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, added key item as well --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost, but I meant like in chronlogical order, i.e. The first time you dont need to place the number of times, the second time you would place (2), the third (3), and so on, not the total # of times over and over. Another thing instead of saying (X) say (#) (on the key).SRX 15:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, added key item as well --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite, I didn't mean the lead, I meant in the table, it wont be needed in the lead.--SRX 14:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 14:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SRX 14:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice lists, perfect! ~~ ĈĠ ☺ Simple? 19:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I disagree with calling any article PERFECT, I believe that the changes will let me support this list. Cheers for it remaining open so long. Support from Killervogel5
- 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 User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008 [17].
List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania
I recently created this and I feel it meets the FL criteria, has a good prose and list format, and any comments will be addressed.--SRX 22:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think you might be moving a bit too fast. The article was just created, it hasn't even been peer reviewed. And about the article, it's too jammed with all of the pictures. I don't think the pictures are necessary. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel a review was necessary as the concept was discussed by multiple editors and they agreed to it, I modeled the list kind of like after the List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. lists, as they have pictures to present the matter, I feel pictures of the celebs help the matter, this is not like an ordinary pro wrestling list, which is how it should be treated. --SRX 23:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The list has red links. -- K. Annoyomous24 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this list should be called, List of celebrities involved in WrestleMania or something similar to that. -- K. Annoyomous24 03:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
this article would have benefited greatly from having another editor look over it before being nominated. In addition, since the nomination was made half an hour after the article was created, the stability is uncertain. I believe that it appears to be an image farm, as the right margin seems cluttered. The prose needs a copyedit, as there are some grammatical errors (sentence beginning with number, incomplete sentence, comma splice, other punctuation issues). I think the tables would be more useful if repeat appearances were given separate entries (eg. four for Pete Rose), as combining them makes it hard to sort and makes the "role" column difficult to read. Two of the redlinked names are misspelled. What makes Anderson a valet and McCarthy merely "in the corner", as they had exactly the same role? The "was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry is inconsistent with the rest of the entries. Rose's profession is probably better described as "Player/manager for the Cincinnati Reds". Sports team names should probably be preceded by "the". Some of the entries under "Role" are sentence fragments but have periods at the end.The column names "Ref" and "Refs" should be replaced with "References".The "See also" section seems unnecessary, as the only term is already used and wikilinked in the prose. I'm still not sure if publishers need to be wikilinked every time in the References section; I personally believe that it makes it hard to read and that the repeated wikilinks don't add anything.GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already copyedited by User:Nikki311. I change the instance about valets, I removed the See Also section and I removed the "Was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry. For the comment about the repeated appearances, it will look redundant to make four repeated entries right next to each other with the same occupation over and over. I tried to span the rows and split the cells, but when you sort them the table messes up, so i'm not sure what to do from now. I removed a couple of the images, I don't know if that is any better. Also I checked the spellings of the red linked article and they are correct.--SRX 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the spellings (unfortunately, WWE.com has terrible spelling). I still think it would be better to have separate entries for each appearance, as it would enable people to sort the table to see everyone who was at a certain WrestleMania. I'm not great with sortable tables, but the "Appearance" column is having trouble with WrestleManias 22, 23, and 2000 (it puts them first, ahead of WrestleMania I). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I separated them and added sort templates to the appearances.--SRX 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments: The prose has improved, but there are a few things that I would recommend: (1) "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then." There are a couple of problems here: has the franchise been produced annually? Perhaps "and the event has been produced annually..." This would also take care of the other problem, which is that there is currently no subject after the comma, so a comma shouldn't be used. (2) "From its debut in 1985..." The article already states when it debuted. Perhaps this phrase could be removed and the sentence could just start with "Aside from professional wrestling performances..." (3) Back to back sentences begin as follows: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania", "Celebrities involved at WrestleMania". More variety would help the prose. (4) What does "promoting a subject" mean? (5) I still really think "Ref" and "Refs" need to be changed to "References". If this doesn't leave enough room for pictures, how about "Notes"? As long as it's a full word, I'll be happy. In each of the descriptions of battles royal, "where" should be replaced with "in which". (6) They didn't appear at the event, but Bucky Goldberg and Vinny Ricciotti were mentioned in each of the WrestleMania Reports on WWF broadcasting leading up the event. During the reports, clips would be shown of Bucky and Vinny driving around in their taxis and commenting on the upcoming matches. I'm not sure that this warrants including, though (they are on SLAM! Wrestling's list of celebrities involved with WrestleMania X—although the site spells Vinny's name incorrectly: [18]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to two of your comments, if you look through some of our Featured lists, a "Ref" or "Refs" column is permitted when using "References" would produce unnecessary whitespace in the table cells and/or would possibly mess up pictures. Calling the column "notes" would mean that the "References" section would also have to be called "Notes". However, one table is "Ref", and the others "Refs". They should all be "Refs". With regards to "Celebrities involved in [or "at"] WrestleMania", with the new page name change, it should be "Celebrities involved with WrestleMania". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Personally, I'd rather have it called "Asparagus" than use a non-word. I'm willing to move on, though (but I do agree that there should be consistency). As for the second comment to which you replied, my concern isn't with the article title. My concern is that back-to-back sentences in the lead begin with almost exactly the same words: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singing, acting, professional boxing, and modeling. Celebrities involved at WrestleMania usually appear in non-wrestling roles..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. Gotcha. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. Personally, I'd rather have it called "Asparagus" than use a non-word. I'm willing to move on, though (but I do agree that there should be consistency). As for the second comment to which you replied, my concern isn't with the article title. My concern is that back-to-back sentences in the lead begin with almost exactly the same words: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singing, acting, professional boxing, and modeling. Celebrities involved at WrestleMania usually appear in non-wrestling roles..." GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to two of your comments, if you look through some of our Featured lists, a "Ref" or "Refs" column is permitted when using "References" would produce unnecessary whitespace in the table cells and/or would possibly mess up pictures. Calling the column "notes" would mean that the "References" section would also have to be called "Notes". However, one table is "Ref", and the others "Refs". They should all be "Refs". With regards to "Celebrities involved in [or "at"] WrestleMania", with the new page name change, it should be "Celebrities involved with WrestleMania". Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments: The prose has improved, but there are a few things that I would recommend: (1) "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then." There are a couple of problems here: has the franchise been produced annually? Perhaps "and the event has been produced annually..." This would also take care of the other problem, which is that there is currently no subject after the comma, so a comma shouldn't be used. (2) "From its debut in 1985..." The article already states when it debuted. Perhaps this phrase could be removed and the sentence could just start with "Aside from professional wrestling performances..." (3) Back to back sentences begin as follows: "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania", "Celebrities involved at WrestleMania". More variety would help the prose. (4) What does "promoting a subject" mean? (5) I still really think "Ref" and "Refs" need to be changed to "References". If this doesn't leave enough room for pictures, how about "Notes"? As long as it's a full word, I'll be happy. In each of the descriptions of battles royal, "where" should be replaced with "in which". (6) They didn't appear at the event, but Bucky Goldberg and Vinny Ricciotti were mentioned in each of the WrestleMania Reports on WWF broadcasting leading up the event. During the reports, clips would be shown of Bucky and Vinny driving around in their taxis and commenting on the upcoming matches. I'm not sure that this warrants including, though (they are on SLAM! Wrestling's list of celebrities involved with WrestleMania X—although the site spells Vinny's name incorrectly: [18]). GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I separated them and added sort templates to the appearances.--SRX 19:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the spellings (unfortunately, WWE.com has terrible spelling). I still think it would be better to have separate entries for each appearance, as it would enable people to sort the table to see everyone who was at a certain WrestleMania. I'm not great with sortable tables, but the "Appearance" column is having trouble with WrestleManias 22, 23, and 2000 (it puts them first, ahead of WrestleMania I). GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already copyedited by User:Nikki311. I change the instance about valets, I removed the See Also section and I removed the "Was" at the beginning of the Dawkins entry. For the comment about the repeated appearances, it will look redundant to make four repeated entries right next to each other with the same occupation over and over. I tried to span the rows and split the cells, but when you sort them the table messes up, so i'm not sure what to do from now. I removed a couple of the images, I don't know if that is any better. Also I checked the spellings of the red linked article and they are correct.--SRX 14:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)That has been fixed, (2) That has also been fixed, (3) and this has also been fixed. (4) Means promoting a certain thing, like Raven promoted the Make a wish foundation. (5)Matthew I think responded to you on that note. (6)I'm not sure, I don't think so because there have been numerous times where people talk about upcoming matches and just appear on WWE TV (or WM TV) but it really doesn't count IMO.--SRX 20:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Motörhead links in the article are currently redirects. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing major, but fixed.SRX 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. However, I disagree that it wasn't major. Featured lists are seen to be as examples of Wikipedia's best lists, and something for others to aspire to, so having such mistakes is a big no-no. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing major, but fixed.SRX 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a number of factual errors in the list. I'll try to get them fixed later if I can. -- Oakster Talk 22:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Well this is a part of the About.com website which I think is reliable here on Wiki no? If not, the writer Eric Cohen is featured on the Gazette of Colorado here. If that does not cover it, the Los Angeles Times also credits Eric Cohen here. According to this, his bio page his work has also been featured on CNN. Also this is the general credit of About.com. Is that enough for it's reliability?--SRX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 16 is lacking a publisher
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overhanging pics—On my large monitor, unless I manually widen the window size the pics down the right-hand side all cover up one or two columns. What's our policy on this? Tony (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS like ... at what point do we advise the creation of a gallery instead? Tony (talk) 08:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It mus be your monitor because on my screen the images look okay and do not "overhang." I don't think a gallery is needed since they are images of the celebs, but its not like a gallery needed for like a building which presents the building itself. Plus if we had images of the celebs at the WM's then we could add a gallery but in this case it doesn't seem necessary as they aren't images taken at WM.--SRX 20:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Mr T's caption is a full sentence so add a full stop.
- "the forthcoming event" - I'd timeframe it (i.e. add something like "... in April 2009...")
- "including singer, actor, professional boxer, and model, among others." - among others is redundant.
- You say Wrestlemania 23 but refer to the others by Roman numerals. Good reason or just inconsistent?
- Because that is the official way WWE spelled out that year's WrestleMania. They did Roman numerals up to WrestleMania XX, then they spelled them out from WrestleMania 21 to WrestleMania 23, then they started again with the roman numerals with WrestleMania XXIV.--SRX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, wasn't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is the official way WWE spelled out that year's WrestleMania. They did Roman numerals up to WrestleMania XX, then they spelled them out from WrestleMania 21 to WrestleMania 23, then they started again with the roman numerals with WrestleMania XXIV.--SRX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though there have been exceptions where celebrities have had a professional wrestling role." yuck, don't start with "Though..."
- "23 years later" - sure that's not 22 years? 1985 to 2007...
- "sang another rendition of "America the Beautiful."" - don't repeat the song - just say something like "another rendition of the same song."
- "At times, WWE has inducted celebrities into their Hall of Fame. Chicago Bears defensive lineman William Perry, wrestled a match involving other NFL football players." - No citations here. "At times..."? Be specific please, encyclopedic article demands good, referenced examples. And finally, what links these two sentences? They read awkwardly placed together this way.
- Centrally align references in the tables.
- Well there have been several times and it would be redundant to list them all, which is why I added "For Example" to connect the following sentence, hope that covers that. The information is also sourced in the list, so I don't think sourcing it in the lead is necessary per WP:LEDE.--SRX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove spaces between citations per WP:CITE.
- Because the table is sortable, make sure you relink everything you've linked each time, e.g. "Los Angeles Memorial Sports Arena"
- Why though? That column isn't sortable and is not listing but is a notes section. It's more of a prose than list type thing (the notes column)--SRX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That column itself isn't sortable but once you sort the table by another of the sortable columns there's no guarantee that the linked instance will always come first. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why though? That column isn't sortable and is not listing but is a notes section. It's more of a prose than list type thing (the notes column)--SRX 01:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Was involved..." - lose the "Was..."
- Not sure of the relevance of genre for the musicians - is it really important to this list?
- Refs 36 & 37 are not working in the reflist.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think a better page title would be List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania
- I agree that it should be List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania because it just makes more sense in my point of view. -- K. Annoyomous24 00:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend creating these redirects WrestleMania celebrities, and for every other redirected link, make duplicates but spell "WrestleMania" "Wrestlemania"
- How is "The WrestleMania franchise debuted in 1985 with WrestleMania I,[1] and has been produced annually since then. WrestleMania XXIV is the most recent production,[2] and WrestleMania XXV in April 2009 will celebrate the series' 25th anniversary.[3]" important to this article which lists involved celebrities?
- "Celebrities involved in WrestleMania events have come from a range of occupations, including singer, actor, professional boxer, and model" "Singing, acting, professional boxing, and modelling" are occupations, what is there now are not occupations, they're describing what a celebrity does.
- "31 athletes, 26 musicians, 20 miscellaneous, and 18 actors." Put the miscellaneous people at the end, and perhaps reword to "...18 actors, and 20 others from different backgrounds" or something?
- Who says John Legend is R&B/neo-soul, compared to all the other similar genre singers who are listed as being "R&B/Soul"
- Multiple sorting issues to be fixed
- {{sortname}} should be used instead of {{sort}}. It will allow for easier updates with each new WrestleMania event
- Eric Esch is sorted in the wrong place
- Stage names should be sorted by the first word.
- Raven-Symoné isn't sorted in the right spot, because her last name isn't Symone. Either sort her by her last name, or just by her stage name which would be "R"
- Limp Bizkit is sorted by "B". Should be sorted by "L"
- Run-DMC is sorted by "D", should be by "R"
- Snoop Dogg should be sorted by "S"
- Boyz II Men should be sorted by "B", not "M"
- Drowning Pool should be sorted by "D", not "P"
- Little Richard should be by "L"
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Raven Symoné is Not done. She now sorts first but should sort by "R". The Rockettes also sort first in their column, but should be by "R"
- References 19 and 20 are fudged. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All concerns addressed. Everything looks okay. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (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 User:The Rambling Man 17:02, 5 September 2008 [19].
List of Indian Mutiny Victoria Cross recipients
Hello, another Victoria Cross recipient list for your perusal. I think this meets all the criteria and follows in the wake of List of Crimean War Victoria Cross recipients. A couple of points that I will tackle beforehand: The title: I realise this may be a bone of contention. I notice from the logs that this has been moved before. I believe that Indian Mutiny is correct for this list as it is a list about British people within this conflict, and the British called this the Indian Mutiny. That said, I am very open to changing it if it is specifically requested with a convincing rationale. ImagesIn previous FLCs there have been requests for more images along the side of the list. If images were placed on some of the more cramped VC articles, then they would get very cramped at lower resolutions. When I go down in resolution, there is simply no room to put them in other articles. With this article, I don't get that problem, but, it would create an inconsistency within the topic, and pictures of recipients are limited. Woody (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything looks good, but in regards to your comment about the title, why not say that the British called it this in the parenthesised part of "during the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)."? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DO you mean having the title as "...Indian rebellion of 1857..." and including Indian Mutiny in parenthesis? A reversal of the current situation? Why would we, anybody looking for VC recipients would be looking for it Indian Mutiny recipients, this is the common name for this from a British perspective. Or, have I misunderstood you? Woody (talk) 11:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant something else, but it has been addressed already. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the campaign was called theIndian Mutiny Campaign so the title would be correct, one point I wondered about, is it worth putting the dates of the Mutiny into the article. (There is the link to the page but the dates could also be included) Was the award of 182 VC's unique ? it seems a lot for a short period of time. Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paragraph of the lead goes into the dates in detail; is there more that can be added to that? In terms of numbers by campaign, the First World War holds the record for the largest number: 627 in 4 years. The Indian Mutiny holds the record for the highest number in a day: "24 in the Second relief of Lucknow on 16 November 1857." I have added that into the article. Woody (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry must have missed the dates. Interesting about the highest number awarded in one day. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "the Indian rebellion of 1857 (also known as Indian Mutiny)" and then "The Indian Mutiny (also known as India's First War of Independence, Revolt of 1857, or the Sepoy Mutiny)" while in agreement, seem in contention with each other in terms of the title of the list.
- Shouldn't that r in rebellion be R?
- "Indian Princely states " in the caption - this term isn't linked, nor is it expanded on in the article - what does it mean?
- "reorganize" - BritEng seems most appropriate here so "reorganise".
- But those are picky. It's a fine list. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have put the Indian Mutiny before rebellion and capitalised Rebellion. I have linked List of Indian Princely States; basically India was split into hundreds of Princely States "ruled by semi-independent potentates." Fixed reorganise. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article, excellent Lede, tables sort fine, no other concerns. Support Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but I do have some comments:
- For several entries, the dates are a little bit confusing. With Dighton Probyn, for example, is that range of dates (1857–1858), or is it a list of dates (like 1857, 1858)? There are several other entries—Charles Gough, especially—where there seems to be a list of dates, or ranges, even. Perhaps commas to separate listed dates (even though they're already on separate lines) and consolidating date ranges (to omit repeated years and months) might both help avoid any ambiguity.
- Can the instances of {{cite web}} be updated to have unlinked dates to match the style in use in the table?
- Otherwise it meets all of the criteria, and compares favorably with other FLs and other VC FLs. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2008 (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 User:Scorpion0422 03:39, 4 September 2008 [20].
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2000
I am submiting this list to the FL status, I think is ready to achieve it.
Thanks, Jaespinoza (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Another great list, though some flaws.
- There where eleven number-one albums on this chart in 2000, starting with the greatest hits collection Desde Un Principio: From the Beginning by Marc Anthony, which spent a non-consecutive run of 13 weeks at the summit between 1999 and 2000. - wrong instance of "where" ---> "were". FIXED!
- MTV Unplugged by Colombian performer Shakira became her second chart topper on this chart, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and also received four nominations for the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000. - ", went on...." --> ", and went on..." "for the Latin..." ---> "at the Latin....". FIXED!
- I recommend making the refs column 1 column because not all browsers have the capability to read 2 columns. FIXED!.
- Nothing to deal with this FLC but someone should fix the template and make it more organized maybe with bullets and separate barriers.
--SRX 15:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not clear whether or not it's still supposed to be part of any criterion (I did not follow at all the revision debate), but given that toping a major chart attest notability, it's obvious to me those albums should all have articles.Circeus (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]- DONE!: All the albums have their articles, and also I added succession boxes for every album. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 2 has the publisher of the site in the link title. Probably should be outside the link title for clarity. FIXED!Same for current ref 3. FIXED!
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "MTV Unplugged by Colombian performer Shakira became her second chart topper on this chart, and went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and also received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." Longish sentence, poorly handled. "MTV Unplugged, by Colombian performer Shakira, became her second chart-topper on this chart, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." FIXED!!
- Do we need a link for the common term "department stores"? See WP:MOSLINK. Unsure the link for "Spanish language" effort will help the reader; it's very heavily linked already, so weed where obvious, please. Capital S, and "album in Spanish" might be better. FIXED!!.
Generally, the prose needs a once-over by someone else. Tony (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "universe of merchants" huh?. FIXED!
- "This data is complied by Nielsen SoundScan from a universe of merchants that represents more than 90% of the U.S. music retail market." sounds very jargony, advertisey and PR-ish. FIXED!
- Actually, the first paragraph is a word-for-word copy of the website in Ref 1. Please re-write this so it is written by a normal person. FLC represents the best we have, not copies of other pages. FIXED!
- "starting with the greatest hits collection" -- change "starting with". FIXED!
- "at the summit starting in" ??. Answer: The album start at number-one since the previous year, should I put it or not?.
- "MTV Unplugged, by Colombian performer Shakira, became her second chart-topper on this list, went on to win the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Album at the 43rd Grammy Awards,[4] and received four nominations at the Latin Grammy Awards of 2000." Too long, and the "became her second..." needs rewording. FIXED!.
- The rest of the prose needs going over, too.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job' Support. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More
- "spent one week at the top
andbut dropped to number 16 the following week.", I think. FIXED!. - Add a link to the most relevant page at Number One, and possibly remove the hyphens?. Answer About this, another user (on another review told me to put the hyphens), should I remove them?
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.