The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) pr3 |
promote 6 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Yankees no-hitters/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Taylor Swift discography/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of French football champions/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of Washington & Jefferson College/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of presidents of Washington & Jefferson College/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Capitals seasons/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Capitals seasons/archive1}} |
Revision as of 02:18, 11 July 2010
- 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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [1].
List of New York Yankees no-hitters
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me apologize now for starting 2 FLCs at once. First off I'd actually meant to nom the above Tigers list last night when I finished but I forgot. Also I thought this little Yankees no-hitters project would take a while, but I ended up spending all day on it and just finished it in one go instead. I promise this is it for a bit, anything else will take quite a while to get done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
I guess since I wrote the model, I have no choice but to comment. :-D
Hope this helps. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support because Stax is the man (ok, because this meets WP:FL?). — KV5 • Talk • 18:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sandman888 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 11 items seems very, very small. Per 3.b cd this not reasonably be combined with other lists of no-hitters.
- quite a long lede.
- 11 items is 2 more than the already featured style guide for this, List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters. It satisfies WP:GNG easily and stand-alone list requirements to cover the topic properly. The lead isn't that long, BTW. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On June 2009 quite many lists were deemed to fail 3.b for having <20 items, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/June 2009. Why shd 'no-hitters' be exempt from that? Lead is quite long. Sandman888 (talk) 08:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, reading those reviews, as far as I can tell none of them were delisted for having less than 20 items. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that this can be a SAL, namely because it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". A list of all no-hitters from all teams would be extremely long, and the lead of that article couldn't go into the detail this one goes into. Mm40 (talk) 12:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that was the rationale that led me to create the Phillies list in the first place. For teams that have a very small amount of no-hitters (even the Phillies' 10 is large, and is obviously contingent on the franchise's long history), information on 3 or 4 can be included in the franchise's main article. But these are really daughters of the main articles that, as Mm40 said, can't reasonably be included due to the length of the leads and the wealth of information that's available on these special games. Additionally, the traditional unofficial cutoff for featured lists has been 10 items, not 20. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it would be long can easily be accommodated by a split. Whatever the random cut-off point might have been, I do not see why these lists cannot be merged, apart from the argument about vasts amounts of information which is supposedly essential to the list, but then it should really be an article (which is the focus) with an supplementary list. Sandman888 (talk) 11:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your argument. These are not split from articles about no-hitters in general; they are split from team articles. All of that information that's contained here could not reasonably be included as part of the team's main article. A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long, as 267 have been thrown in MLB history, and to list them by player wouldn't make any sense either, because it's only the rare pitcher who throws more than one in his career. By team is the division that makes sense, especially since they are split from the team articles. — KV5 • Talk • 11:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. It is perfectly possible to make a list of all no-hitters and then split it due to size; "List of no-hitters" & "List of no-hitters II" or whatever convention one might like. See also here which discussed the merits of keeping information in one article. Sandman888 (talk) 08:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And maybe I didn't make myself clear, as I just said "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long". If you want a list of all no-hitters, you can find one at Retrosheet. We're trying to build encyclopedia articles about baseball teams, not specifically about no-hitters. Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles. I can't stress that point enough, and I don't know how I can make it any clearer. — KV5 • Talk • 11:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Argument I: "A list of all no-hitters would be prohibitively long", see this for a long FL. You have not said why it cannot be split in two (rather than 15+ articles). Argument II:"Like I said, these are not daughters of a list of no-hitters; they are daughters of team articles." that no-hitters somehow does not belong together is quite odd. The criteria clearly states that "and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Can a list of all no-hitters be made? Sure, you have linked to one yourself. The last remaining reason is that you want to write about "baseball teams" and not "no-hitters", I'm rather perplexed about how that is supposed to relate to 3.b, which does not have a qualifying ("unless you are aiming for a featured topic, then you can create all the small articles you'd like"). Sandman888 (talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that other FLs of length exist; I worked on restoring one. This list, however, meets both parts of criterion 3 in full because: a) "It comprehensively covers the defined scope", which is this team's no-hitters (not all no-hitters), and b) it "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article", because there is no list of no-hitters for all teams on Wikipedia, and we don't need one because its utility is limited. The utility of these team articles is greater because they are part of team histories. — KV5 • Talk • 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NatureBoyMD |
---|
Other than these, the list looks great. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - Great list, nice work. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my half-witted nonsense dealt with patiently and expediently. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:*Comments
Courcelles (talk) 07:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – First, let me say that I think the notes are just enough for this to be an exception to 3b. I would hate to see what a table with every no-hitter ever would look like with those notes.
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 10 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [3].
Grammy Award for Best Metal Performance
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC) and --Cannibaloki 13:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but most of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support from multiple reviewers, so I thought it was appropriate to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to offer suggestions! Another Believer (Talk) 16:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need to know that the New York Times is printed by the New York Times Company, et.al.? The Boston Globe perhaps, but it's almost as repetitive as saying that the New York Times is published in New York. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I always felt it was most appropriate to include as much reference information as possible. If you feel strongly about not including the name of the publisher, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I'd be happy to remove it. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it asked for on the FAC for Anna Wintour so it seems to be something people care about. It seems purely redundant in cases like the New York Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, etc... I mean, if you're going to include 'as much as possible' you'd better include the cities as well... but I somehow think that won't improve anyone's ability to look up the citation. :P --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the publisher information for The New York Times and The Seattle Times, as requested. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw it asked for on the FAC for Anna Wintour so it seems to be something people care about. It seems purely redundant in cases like the New York Times, Seattle Times, Washington Post, etc... I mean, if you're going to include 'as much as possible' you'd better include the cities as well... but I somehow think that won't improve anyone's ability to look up the citation. :P --Golbez (talk) 05:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 21:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Another nice list. Jujutacular T · C 23:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Looks good to me. Might be worth checking whether the Chicago Tribune articles can be found freely online here, but nothing is wrong with those sources as is, so it's nothing to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [4].
List of Toronto Blue Jays first-round draft picks
I am nominating this for featured list because it fits all criteria and is complete, like the other draft list FLs. Plus, this will complete a whole country's worth of baseball draft pick FLs (currently 0 of 1 done). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Two quick things, for now:
|
- Support
CommentsHey now, technically you have to do List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks to get through every Canadian franchise's draft picks. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you checked the MLB draft history pages (like this) to check if there were any unsigned guys pre-compensation? I know I missed a couple that I had to add in recently.
- Checked there. Blue Jays got lucky, Paxton was their first and only non-signee. I guess that's technically true that we're not done with Canada quite yet, the Expos drafted many. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Captions for the Chris Carpenter and Aaron Hill photos could use cites, since their main facts aren't mentioned anywhere else.In reference 10, should there be an apostrophe in Player's in Major League Baseball Player's Association? Our article on the MLBPA doesn't have one.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Only thing I'll add is that it would be good to check other draft list articles to see if my second comment applies; I remember that source from a few past lists. Doesn't affect this nom, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Went through and fixed all of those apostrophes. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [5].
Taylor Swift discography
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Taylor Swift discography for featured list again because I feel that it meets all criteria needed to be a FL. It is sourced and well-organized. Last time, it was not listed and I think that was a mistake. Anyways, before there was a source that was questionable, Chartstats.com, and I have changed it to the official website of The Official Charts Company, Theofficialchartscompany.com. So, I think the article is more than ready to become a FL. ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see this list back here again. Its certainly good research work, and the lead looks good. Comments:
Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*The RIAA citation still isn't working for me as it wasn't when I brought it up in the previous nom, but it was apparently just me then. As long as it works for others, I'm good with it.
|
Other than that, no issues that I see right off the bat. liquidluck✽talk 01:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there was a reliable source stating which singles are promotional and which are not? If it is separate for each, you can add a reference next to the title of each song. Otherwise, I'd rather see them in "other charted songs"; I've certainly heard "Today Was a Fairytale" on the radio.
- So have I but it is a promo single because it was not released as a CD single and only a digital single. For the references, Allmusic and previously Rolling Stone had all those songs listed as digital singles. Anyways, if it makes you feel any better, I verified them to make sure it wasn't just a mistake. I think adding a source to each song would be pointless. Then I would have to add a source for each studio album, live album, EP, and single. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor concern: Should Best Days of Your Life (video) and/or Online (song) (video), in which Swift appears but does not sing, be included? This is really more an issue for the discographies wikiproject/MOS than for you, so not a big concern. liquidluck✽talk 06:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What does MOS say about it? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since guidelines don't say anything about it, and Swift (vocally), does not appear than I don't think it should be added. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This looks like it has met the FL criteria to be promoted.BLUEDOGTN 17:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Didn't have any issues with the lead last time, and a quick check revealed no new causes for concern. I did inquire about the one source, but since that's gone it's no longer an issue. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 10 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [6].
List of Texas Tech Red Raiders in the NFL Draft
I based this NFL Draft list off of the FLs List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft and List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I feel it meets all of the FLC. NThomas (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was Crabtree picked ninth (caption) or tenth (table)? Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"This includes 6 players taken in the first round and one overall number one pick". Comparitive elements like this should consistently be numerals or words, not both. I suggest switching the first one to a word.
Link Pro Bowl in the first use.
- Linked.
One of the general references is a little larger than the others for some reason. Is it something with the formatting?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed it. There was a duplicate tag before the last reference NThomas (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Looks great to me and has the feel and the content of a FL article.BLUEDOGTN 16:58, 5 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 02:18, 11 July 2010 [7].
List of French football champions
- Nominator(s): Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is capable of being one due to the list's importance in French football and its overall accuracy. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Thank you. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment Sandman888 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Took FLC down and re-posted following conclusion of peer review. Made some edits based on peer review, other than posting pictures as it is very difficult to find pictures of old French coaches and players. Will possibly do that later.Joao10Siamun (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are no references at all for the tables, what is sourcing this info.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Posted the references for the tables. Didn't know exactly where to put them, so I added them to after the tab subject. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment
I may come back with more later, but this struck me. Courcelles (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Provisional Support if Rambo's issues are resolved- the referencing (the only thing I've taken a hard eye to on this one) now looks fine to me. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
(talk) 21:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Don't see any more issues, and others brought up here have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Just fix those things and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. I didn't notice my comments were fixed originally; make sure you reply to comments here so that we notice in the future. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll happily review the list as soon as outstanding comments are addressed. Just leave a note on my talkpage if I don't spot it automatically. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think outstanding concerns have been addressed. Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as pointed out above, in a sortable table, names need to be linked every time they appear, not just the first time..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by nom Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a regular contributor of French football here, I should express some remarks :
- Third image on the right (1926-27 champions) should be CA Paris instead of CA Paris-Charenton, which is the name the club took in the 1960's if I remember well.
- No AS Saint-Etienne image. That's a shame for the dominent French club of the 1970's. Maybe the picture of Georges Bereta could be used, as he was a key part of the team.
- Tom me, in the "Championships by club" table, amateurs championships should be, just as the 1944-45 championship, written in a different way (italic) as they have a different "status" than professional championships and are not really recognized. For example, Marseille has officially 9 championships.
However, that's a very good work. Cheers.--Latouffedisco (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. English champions before 1920 harp on about their early titles as equal achievements to recent ones, despite the fact that at that stage clubs south of Birmingham didn't take part. I think the current system is adequate- a reader can easily tell by looking at the table how many of a club's titles were amateur or professional. WFCforLife (talk) 09:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was thinking about removing the 1944–45 season completely. Also, clubs, such as Le Havre and Marseille, who have won an amateur championship, do consider them legitimate. They might not carry the same weight as professional titles, but each club recognized them as official league titles they have won. – Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose for now
These are all simple to fix but I'll oppose temporarily until they are sorted. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments (Still Oppose)
These latests comments are much more concerning and in future please do not strike my comments. Just let me know what you've done and I'll strike them if I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think that is my final lot, great job thus far. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Right, I feel I've made a thorough review of this candidacy and am now happy to offer my support. Congratulations. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- I don't like the floating reference [4] under the section title but above the table. Can you not just write an introductory sentence to attach the reference to?
- I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that. I guess I'll put them in the table. Is that okay? I just think having an adjoined sentence near the table would look weird. I will also note (not directly to you TRM) that this article's English and Italian counterparts, which are FLs, don't have its tables directly referenced, which is weird. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that a floating reference isn't something I'd expect to see in a professional article on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that, but I honestly don't see a problem with it, though, which is why I said good faith is not a problem or what would you recommend? If it violates a rule or guideline or if your support of the list depends on it, then I'm cool with that and I'll add something. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting you write some text here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got no problem with GF edits. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprised that a number of French football champions don't have their own article, or at least aren't redlinked - surely they're notable by virtue of the fact they won the French league?
- I'll create the articles of the clubs when I have time. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink those that are notable. I suggest that's all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink those that are notable. I suggest that's all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll create the articles of the clubs when I have time. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is note 1 referenced anywhere?
- Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever it is that references it, I suggest nesting the reference within the note (explained in my capped cmts or just copy what I did on the list before). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The reference doesn't directly mention the switch, but it does state that changes were made following the first season. I posted the season articles from a historian site to add more inference. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. — Joao10Siamun (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [8].
List of presidents of Washington & Jefferson College
I am nominating this for featured list because...it seems ready. This is a unique list, since there do not appear to be any lists of presidents of colleges that have achieved FL status, so I had to create the format from scratch. Please see the peer review for background on how the current format came to be. GrapedApe (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments Jujutacular T · C 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Jujutacular T · C 17:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ought to have stopped by earlier, as a lot of my nitpicks were dealt with during the peer review. Only two minor points remaining, I think: (a) I'm still not entirely certain what the President does, if anything (e.g. is it a ceremonial, or an executive, position?); (b) is Wikisource a reliable source? BencherliteTalk 10:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (a): should be clarified in paragraph 3. (b): The wikisource text came from the Coleman book. I changed the references to go straight to the Coleman book instead.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed one more instance of ref 7, but you could add a sisterlink template to the charter somewhere so the link isn't lost. Anyway, support. Nice work. BencherliteTalk 17:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [9].
List of Washington Capitals seasons
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets the FL criteria. I've based it mainly off of the List of New Jersey Devils seasons, which was in turn based on List of Calgary Flames seasons, List of New York Islanders seasons, and List of New York Rangers seasons. Sorry I haven't been around here lately, and I look forward to any feedback you have to give me. Thanks. -- Nomader (Talk) 03:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Good work on addressing concerns (Wd like to know if there's a script for capping cmts) Sandman888 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* lead cd be longer, see List of FC Barcelona seasons for an example.
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Did someone mention the Rangers season list I worked on? :-) Who better than the nominator of that list to review this one? First, I do think Hockey-Reference is reliable; it has passed muster in featured article candidate source reviews in the recent past. Of course, that doesn't mean it has to be used; HockeyDB.com is fine as well. More specific points:
|
- Support – After the resolution of the comments, everything looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment: I see no issues myself, will support when TRM above marks his concerns resolved. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a very indepth list of the overall seasons with all of the FL criteria met.BLUEDOGTN 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:49, 6 July 2010 [10].
List of FC Barcelona presidents
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this exciting list of Presidents of Barcelona to FL. It's been through PR and obtained two copy-edits by other editors. Sources should be a-okay. I have another list here, which has two supports and is a month old now. Sandman888 (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I have informed all reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews. Sandman888 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry it's taken a while to get to this...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Thank you very much for the thorough review (and any pending). Sandman888 (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problems with this becoming a featured list, although i have never edited in anything similar (club presidents, club owners, etc). However, it is definitely WP material. I am neutral. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, if there's something you could see improved, please do advice :) Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the featured list nomination. However, I would suggest we remove the "Managing Commission" ones. I think it is better to see Joan Laporta listed as one single line instead of 2 lines. Jordiferrer (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support, I can perhaps have both managing commissions included as notes rather than separate entries. Would that be better? Sandman888 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments haven't looked at the prose
More comments: |
There are 16 redlinks, and 23 blue. If all the redlinked persons are notable, then I wonder whether 16 out of 39 presidents i.e. 40+% satisfies Criterion 5a: "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". I'm not a fan of the mass creation of unsourced uncategorised stubs "Fred Smith is a footballer who played 120 times for Template FC." like used to happen when redlinks weren't allowed at all, but I've opposed at other FLCs on this point and will probably do so here. The directors and other reviewers may well take a different view of the interpretation of "minimal".- Tbh, I'm unsure if the first couple of presidents can be said to be notable. Barcelona wasn't the same back then as it is now and several of the redlinks have only been there for a very short time. They are not covered by WP:ATHLETE, so wd like some input on this Sandman888 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to whether the president of FC Barcelona is inherently notable. If they're not, which is probably the view I'd take, then those names currently redlinked should be de-linked and the minimal proportion problem disappears. See what other people think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt we can say that without overriding regular guidelines. I think it wd be dubious at best, to make the presidency of FCB a sufficient criteria of notability. Sandman888 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now you're down to 6 redlinks out of 34 definitely-and-or-possibly notable presidents, I won't oppose on 5a. Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It comes down to whether the president of FC Barcelona is inherently notable. If they're not, which is probably the view I'd take, then those names currently redlinked should be de-linked and the minimal proportion problem disappears. See what other people think. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tbh, I'm unsure if the first couple of presidents can be said to be notable. Barcelona wasn't the same back then as it is now and several of the redlinks have only been there for a very short time. They are not covered by WP:ATHLETE, so wd like some input on this Sandman888 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support on everything but prose quality, I haven't reviewed the prose and will leave it to others to decide on that. After a considerable amount of work, I think the list now satisfies the remaining criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (OD) I've created some stubs and delinked some who where presidents < 6 months and no honours. There are 6 redlinks left, and all of them have been president for more or less a year and won no honours. Shd they be delinked? Sandman888 (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter to me either way personally. They can stay linked, that's fine. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [11].
List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK)
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because over the past month it has been extensively re-written from this to its present form. The expansion started when I was background reading for (recent FL) List of Record Mirror number-one singles and I just got a bit too involved so here I am again. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Oppose A few problems need to be resolved:
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
#The UK Singles Chart is a weekly record chart. In the 1970s, it was compiled each week... There is no need to repeat two times that it is a weekly chart.
|
- Thanks, for your comments. Much appreciated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the images need to be placed better. On my monitor I have to scroll down through nearly three screens' worth of blank white space with images at the right before I get to the first table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest what resolution are you running and do you the same problem with this? The table is obviously a bit too wide for your monitor but I cannot tell by how much. I've forced some wrapping which has taken quite a bit off the width but I don't know if it is enough for you. Unfortunately this is also one of the adverse affects that increasing thumbnail sizes would have. Can you let me know if it is better now or, roughly, how much is left to go. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2000s list I only get a small whitespace before the 2009 table, the rest is OK. On this list the whitespace is now down to about 2.5 screens' worth. Apparently (someone more knowledgable than me tells me) my resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels, hope that means something :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I've reduced the image sizes. Is it any better? I must say this problem suprises me as the table wraps on my computer until the window is very thin. Do you have quite a narrow monitor? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My monitor's approximately 34cm wide. Is that narrow? I don't know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you measuring diagonally? If so, that would be about 13 inches, which is pretty narrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, side to side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, in that case it seems your monitor is smaller than any of those listed at viewable image size. See this for an idea of the sizes people mostly use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's 17" diagonally. Blame work, they gave it to me :-) But if I've got some sort of freaky-weird non-standard monitor and it displays OK on all normal ones then I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, in that case it seems your monitor is smaller than any of those listed at viewable image size. See this for an idea of the sizes people mostly use. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, side to side -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you measuring diagonally? If so, that would be about 13 inches, which is pretty narrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My monitor's approximately 34cm wide. Is that narrow? I don't know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I've reduced the image sizes. Is it any better? I must say this problem suprises me as the table wraps on my computer until the window is very thin. Do you have quite a narrow monitor? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 2000s list I only get a small whitespace before the 2009 table, the rest is OK. On this list the whitespace is now down to about 2.5 screens' worth. Apparently (someone more knowledgable than me tells me) my resolution is 1280 x 1024 pixels, hope that means something :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of interest what resolution are you running and do you the same problem with this? The table is obviously a bit too wide for your monitor but I cannot tell by how much. I've forced some wrapping which has taken quite a bit off the width but I don't know if it is enough for you. Unfortunately this is also one of the adverse affects that increasing thumbnail sizes would have. Can you let me know if it is better now or, roughly, how much is left to go. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
Just fix these and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2010 (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 Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [12].
List of Madonna concert tours
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this is a comprehensive list of Madonna's world and promotional tours, as well as her live performances. The article has gone through a Peer review and hence I believe that with the consensus of my fellow editors, the article can be promoted to a Featured List. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments by TbhotchTalk C.
|
- Thanks a lot for your comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 12:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. TbhotchTalk C. 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Live Performances
The The Power of Good-Bye and Shanti/Ashtangi and Ray of Light performance order is incorrect, the vmas was before the emas. Also the 2005 ema Hung up performance is not included. Johnnyboytoy (talk)
Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Well, that's all from me. I'll happily support once these minor tweaks are done.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- All concerns have been addressed. Thank you for your comments. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 15:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. WereWolf (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment: Make sure American English is used in this article, as Madonna is an American recording artist. For example, favorable, not "favourable". That's the only issue I found, fix anything like that and I'll support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:14, 30 June 2010 (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 Dabomb87 14:51, 2 July 2010 [13].
Hugo Award for Best Novelette
In what must be a total surprise, fresh after the successful Novel and Novella FLCs, here is the Hugo Award for Best Novelette. The works are shorter but the lists are similar, so as before, any concerns raised in the other FLCs have been fixed here as well. Thanks for voting! --PresN 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This list is of the same quality as Hugo Award for Best Novel, which I supported. Ruslik_Zero 17:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "or Worldcon, and the presentation evening constitutes its central event." the evening presentation would sound better, I think. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that Worldcons are 3-4 days long. I made it "award presentation". --PresN 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I just realized I never finished this review up. I didn't find anything else though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks as good as the other Hugo Award lists. GamerPro64 (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.