promote 4 |
promote 6 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Seattle Mariners first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Joan Gamper Trophy/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kesha discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lady Gaga discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by An Education/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by An Education/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine/archive1}} |
Revision as of 22:05, 7 September 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [1].
List of Seattle Mariners first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 08:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did I get here? I was going to do one of these, and a long story later, somehow this is the third of these draft pick lists I've worked on. This list (assuming the Cardinals list that is nominated passes) would be 2/3rds of the way through the Featured Topic. Enjoy. Courcelles 08:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I don't know much about Baseball, so this was an interesting read. A good list (as usual) and the only thing I saw was in your external links; I'm gussing Tha Baseball Cube should be The Baseball Cube. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does t help if I say I'm not the one that put that there? Still should have seen it, fixed, thanks. Courcelles 02:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, Support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 10:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - bingo! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
"The Mariners' 2007 pick...". Aumont wasn't their only first round pick that year, which is implied to a certain degree. How about "One of the Mariners' 2007 picks"?Capitalization fix needed in "American league MVP awards"; "league" should begin with a capital letter.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Thanks. Courcelles 23:20, 2 September 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [2].
Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year
- Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have based this list on similar Featured Lists such as Ipswich Town F.C. Player of the Year and Watford F.C. Player of the Season, and I believe it now meets the criteria. Thanks. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport I supported last time and probably will again if there have been improvements. I do want to check a few things just to make sure everything is feature quality before making a !vote.
- To start with
- Dablinks is good.
- http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Plymouth_Argyle_F.C._Player_of_the_Year Checklinks] shows to suspicious as probable 404s but they check out. One did not work earlier even though it does now so the site might be having issues.
- Alt viewer shows it is taken care of. I am under the impression that this was dropped from the criteria but just to make it better: Try adding something baout the first guy's hair or something to clarify that it is dated. Try adding a mention to Wotton like "with his arms raised triumphantly".Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any dashes are OK with the MoS.Cptnono (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some more alternative text to the lead image and Wotton's as suggested. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: I am happy to support this. It appears to be a perfectly fine list. I do not believe it needs to be mad into an article or merged but that is still a possibility if people feel strongly about it. As of right now, it meets (if not exceeds) the requirements. The lead is great and the list is thoroughly detailed. The first FL nom had some concerns with sources. These have been addressed. It does not over rely on primary sources. I was initially wary of Statto but the "about us" page convinced me otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is essentially a content fork of "List of Plymouth Argyle F.C. players", being a reduced duplicate of the information there. While the AfD of York was a keep, many of the keep-arguments concerned the lists FL status being a sufficient guarantee against 3.b, however this is not the case here, so it would take novel arguments as to why this content fork is acceptable. I defer my oppose until a case has been made.
- "Plymouth Argyle Hall of Fame" delink Plymouth Argyle.
- There is some crossover between the two but I don't believe that is a reason to fail/delete. The main "List of players" inclusion criteria is 100 appearances but I wanted to include POTY winners/Hall of Famers because they are undeniably notable. The award is only mentioned briefly so if a reader wondered how a winner is picked and this list didn't exist then they would be stuck. Merely adding it on to the bottom of the list is a non-starter for me because the "List of players" is long enough already and both will continue to grow as time progresses. WP:CF backs up my belief in the lead. Delinked name in Table key. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguable that makes the case for removing the list and converting this into an article proper. A simple wikilink from the main list would then be sufficient. I simply fail to see what constitute a breach of 3.b if this does not, i.e. if a different lead is sufficient. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 00:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I'm going to review this, due to a close association with this strand of lists. What I will say is that if an AfD survived solely on the grounds that WP:FOOTY editors didn't want to see an FL deleted, that would not be a valid close. If you believe that has happened, you should seek to clarify the decision at deletion review. --WFC-- 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the By player table, players are sorting by first name, not last.
- Fixed. Not sure why that table wasn't using {{sortname}}. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note E: "and the players article as appropriate thereafter." Wait a second. "players" needs an apostrophe in it, but that's not my real concern here. Does this mean that we're using Wikipedia articles as sources for this page? If so, I see no way that they can pass muster as reliable sources.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I should've taken that out a while ago because it isn't true. Each international player has a reference in the caps column. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 10:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – In my mind at least, an actual award article is valid, and this one meets all the standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm reluctant to do this, but I sincerely believe this list can be incorporated into another, and thus it does not meet the criteria set forth in WP:FL?. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted last year, because then it would most likely have been a FL like the rest of them as the way to FL and back is asymmetrical. Sandman888 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Satisfied that it passes 3b. The aforementioned AfD was closed as a clear keep, and the DRV was withdrawn by the nominator. Consensus clearly seems to be in favour of these lists. --WFC-- 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - also satisfied that this is a legitimate stand-alone list, so that's out of the way.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Refs 8, 10, 12 should have authors
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
- Dabomb kindly asked me to address 3b. Thanks for that... Some thoughts:
- Don't think the York City keep at AfD is all that relevant: the prevailing argument did seem to be appealing to the current FL criteria, when the criteria in force when that list was promoted didn't include any content fork-related requirement;
- This article deals with the Plymouth Argyle F.C. Player of the Year award, an award which has been running for approaching fifty years. It has independent third-party notability in the various newspapers of the West Country, as can be seen on the internet nowadays, and there's no reason to doubt that similar coverage existed over the lifetime of the award. Therefore, it's a perfectly acceptable notable free-standing topic to spin out either from the main club article or from a list of players, because it can't be covered in the same detail in a more general article without giving it undue weight.
- However, once this article has been spun out, I don't think there's any need to include those winners in the main players list who were there only as PotY winners. With only one list, it's currently acceptable to include clearly-defined extras. Once those extras are spun out into their own list which goes into extra detail about the award itself, I don't see any reason for those who don't qualify for the main list on appearances or as Hall of Fame members to be in it.
- However (too much however) I will
Support this list, assuming something suitable gets done about Larrieu's caption and/or reference, and the unused playing position key. If the RfC on 3b, and the other RfC on notability of lists, come to any conclusion, then this list and any others affected can be dealt with as appropriate. But as it stands, I'd have supported this list two weeks ago, before this matter was raised, and the criteria haven't changed in that two weeks. So I'll support it now. yours inconsistently, Struway2 (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the extra feedback. I see you noticed my edit! I've changed Larrieu's caption because I couldn't find anywhere reliable that states he is our longest serving foreign player. The only players above him here come from the British Isles, but using Wikipedia for referencing purposes is generally frowned upon of course. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 03:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Quite honestly, I've never seen the argument that these lists fail 3b as having any merit. The award is notable in itself, making this fine as a stand-alone list. Courcelles 15:37, 6 September 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [3].
List of Commando raids on the Atlantic wall
- Nominator(s): Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because, even though it is my first attempt at a Featured List I believe it meets the criteria. It has just had a WP:MILHIST peer review and all comments have been addressed.. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'll come back and do a full review of this later, but we don't start FL's like this anymore. Look at Army of the Danube order of battle for a somewhat similar list for an idea of how to open this list. When you're done, there is unlikely to be any bold text left. Courcelles 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't understand why Operation Chariot is referenced as the greatest raid of all time multiple times in the article. The only reason given is because Jeremy Clarkson made a documentary about it. Objectively it seems to me as Operation Claymore and Operation Archery had much better results especially as in Operation Chariot many were killed and many more captured. Philistus (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - No Clarkson did a BBC programme on the raid which used the title already in common use see here for a Google book search [4] The term is only used twice once in the lede and once beside the entry for the raid. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - oh ok, I get it now. Thanks for explaining. Philistus (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*comment Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- After sorting is ordered I support this list. Btw, per wp:lead, a picture up in the lead section would be good. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 08:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Is there a consistent approach to capitalising Commando? "of all Commandos captured" vs "chronological list of all the commando raids"
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
|
- Support! One question: Is alt-text required on pictures in galleries? MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not sure so tried to add alt text but it does not work within the gallery template. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FLC criteria doesn't require alt text at all at present. Courcelles 01:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not sure so tried to add alt text but it does not work within the gallery template. Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
In general, this needed to go through an ACR over at Milhist, as the prose is choppy and lacks a lot of flow. It needs attention from subject matter experts as well as an independent copyeditor.
Courcelles 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Courcelles 21:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- Place of publication needed for virtually all references.
- Titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes missed that - both done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found it very helpful to build a library page with all of my books and references properly formatted; you might consider the same.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes missed that - both done --Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and that's a good idea as I use the same books all the time. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:11, 6 September 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [5].
Joan Gamper Trophy
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC), User:Djln[reply]
I already have one here with two supports, and hopefully another reviewer will support so it can be closed. Due to calls for more FLCs I hereby nom this. This is quite the inverse of my earlier FLC in terms of complexion, being basically a copy of a RSSSF list. Have a go at it! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 05:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I co-nomed Djln, he doesn't answer to talkpage queries.[reply]
- Comment - why is the list in backwards chronological order? Existing FLs such as List of FA Cup winners, etc etc, are all in forwards chronological order, I see no compelling reason for this one to be different...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- re-ordered per WP:SALAT Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 10:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - general refs should go before specific refs. Can't see any issues other than that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anything else that will sway you to support? Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 09:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK now to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I'd have the general reference font size the same as the specific ones, but its no big deal. Good work. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I just added a couple of things that you can revise. You have done a very good work. I only have one small comment regarding the "Flag legend" section. Is that section really needed?. If a flag is unknown for you at any of the tables, you can always place the mouse on it, and a yellow text is telling you the country. Anyway, if you finally decide to keep this section, I would rather move it below all the tables. --Jordiferrer (talk) 10:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Courcelles 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Infobox. Does the infobox template impose the tiny font in the parenthesised bits? if not, could we have the same size as everything else
|
Comments.
- MOS:FLAG#Accompany flags with country names says that "The name of a flag's country ... should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags." Further, in sortable tables, each row should be able to stand on its own, so the name would need to be repeated for each use, just as you have with the club names.
- Yes I thought about that, hated as it is it's still 'policy'. I recommend we ignore it, the only solution is to remove the flags which I don't see how anyone can gain from. Including four extra columns for all of the flags would be horrible. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'll have to oppose on the flags. Daresay most of us have bits of the MoS that we're not keen on, but I don't think this is one that can be ignored. Are there no other lists of this type? if there are, how do they deal with the issue? Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legend added per recommendation on MoS#Flag. I'm unaware of similar lists. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments shuffled a bit to put whole conversation together. My fault for separating them in the first place. Thank you for taking the trouble to seek advice at WT:MOSICON#The use of flags and common sense. I'm no expert on accessibility considerations: if providing a legend is an accessible alternative to using country names with flags, then I strike my oppose. Struway2 (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legend added per recommendation on MoS#Flag. I'm unaware of similar lists. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Table. Aren't numeric columns (edition, year, score) normally centre-aligned?
- I havn't thought of that before you asked. A question of taste I guess, I do not think the layout as such stand out.
- All done except if commented on. Thanks for the review! Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A legend may be added but it's still a multicoloured mess. The flags should go . Words are clearerGnevin (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that legend could do with some reformatting, but otherwise it meets policy. --WFC-- 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, flattering the aesthetic considerations of the MoS#icons people, removed the flags from the participation by country. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. While I personally prefer score and year columns to be center-aligned, it's not something I feel strongly enough about to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 2 September 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [6].
Kesha discography
- Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is engaging and contains valuable information that accurately summarizes the body of the article.
- All certifications are sourced by certification agencies and are done in a neat fashion.
- All chart positions are properly sourced and are properly updated.
- All sources are properly formatted, accurate, and reliable.
- - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) (part 1) |
---|
:comment, i'll refrain from voting yes or no right now because I'll take a thorough look over the next few days. However there are a few things I will say. The review for Kelly Rowland discography (which was recently promoted) determined that the format of discographies will need to be updated in the future to match WP:ACCESSIBILITY. However there is some changes which can be made immediately. The music video and collaboration tables need to be updated according to WP:Wikitable. Also you've used a press release to source "My First Kiss" reaching platinum in the US. This should be sourced directly from RIAA or its not considered official. Also see Kelly Rowland discography for the correct link to for certification heading. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from –Chase (talk) |
---|
*Comment: Everything here looks good, but I don't think "other charted songs" and "collaborations" should be here. The discography is supposed to cover musical releases, and those were not released as singles. –Chase (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I still don't like that non-releases are included, but if it's that big of a deal to keep them in here, I suppose it's not too large of a concern. –Chase (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, if it ever becomes a rule or guideline not to include them for FL requirements ill remove them with out hesitation. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there a reason why the year columns for the music videos and collaboration sections are at the end of the table? Just wondering, because I've never seen it done like that on any other pages, and none of the featured discography pages seem to be like that (for the music videos section, at least). Yvesnimmo (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was actually Lil_℧niquℇ №1 who changed it, i dont really care either way. His reasoning was which is most important as your reading? The song or the year it was released? which if you think about it it actually makes sense to have the year last. BTW thanks for making some corrections to the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may change if you disagree as i have no strong feelings either way. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no problem! Well, the year is used as the first column for the single and album tables throughout, so I just thought it should be the same for consistency. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- mhmm, i could really care less but ive changed it back to year being first as thats how it is for the rest of the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to clarify. Per WP:wikitable and WP:ACCESS articles are undergoing some changes to meet accessibility guidelines. When using a screen reader (blind users will use such software) the screen reader should read the most important peice of information first because it is the first thing said by the reader which is the identifying piece of information. For users who cannot see the make-up of the tables the song title is the most important piece of info not the year. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For machine readability it is also desirable to get rid of the rowspan, so each line has the year. Example: Helena Bonham Carter#Filmography. Note the table is also sortable and the colour has been removed. --Diannaa (Talk) 22:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Allow me to clarify. Per WP:wikitable and WP:ACCESS articles are undergoing some changes to meet accessibility guidelines. When using a screen reader (blind users will use such software) the screen reader should read the most important peice of information first because it is the first thing said by the reader which is the identifying piece of information. For users who cannot see the make-up of the tables the song title is the most important piece of info not the year. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- mhmm, i could really care less but ive changed it back to year being first as thats how it is for the rest of the article :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no problem! Well, the year is used as the first column for the single and album tables throughout, so I just thought it should be the same for consistency. :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) |
---|
*Comment looks good, but the lead needs a quick copy-edit, including the addition of some commas. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
I will now support, but I think that the lead could also do with a bit of wikifying, particularly that of genres and countries. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and i added more wiki links. :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Legolas (talk2me) |
---|
Comment These are some concerns that I found with the article and hence I won't support yet still.
These are the things I found for now. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Not Done:
|
Support — Everything looks good with the discography now. — Legolas (talk2me) 10:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
Active:
Courcelles 18:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 20:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Neutral Issues resolved, I'm not 100% sold on 3b, but I withdraw my oppose. Courcelles 22:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I decided to copy edit it myself and I'm now satisfied with the prose and the other technical aspects. On 3b, although there isn't much of a discography, I believe it's of more use in its own article than it would be merged back into Kesha, not least since it would more-than-likely be split again in the near-ish future as she releases more music. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Mild oppose (sorry if some repeat resolved stuff ^^)
l|talk2me]] -
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Was her debut album really realised worldwide on the same date?
- you choose to first release date, which was January 1 - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
- Says who? Perhaps just clarify in the lead where it was initially released. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest adding the word "from" as this is a quick solution? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Says who? Perhaps just clarify in the lead where it was initially released. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- you choose to first release date, which was January 1 - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me -
- 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 22:05, 7 September 2010 [7].
Lady Gaga discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I have structured it off several current FL-class discographies, including but not limited to: Madonna singles discography, Madonna albums discography, Taylor Swift discography, and Eminem discography. I believe that this is one of the finest pop discographies currently on Wikipedia and that this deserves to be a featured list. –Chase (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, but all external links to Vevo don't work for me; they say that Vevo is not available in my country. Ucucha 06:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about VEVO on YouTube? I can use those in Canada. Unless you aren't referring to videos.
- Also, I remember helping work on some Lady Gaga articles during the entire debate about whether The Fame Monster was a new version of The Fame. Long time no see Legolas. =)
- Oh yeah. Support. CycloneGU (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Adabow (talk · contribs) |
---|
Comment Shouldn't "Chillin" be in a separate table from her solo singles? And if "Chillin" is here, why isn't "Video Phone"? Also what are the selected 10 charts decided by? One would think that they are the charts where an artist has had the most success. In the albums table(s), the Swedish Chart is chosen, but in New Zealand both studio albums and The Remix have charted higher [8]. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I think I am finished for good now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note: WP:DISCOG and WP:GAGA have been notified of this FLC in hope of attaining more comments. –Chase (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Nothing major. A note on my talk page would be appreciated when these have been addressed or if you need clarification on anything. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Very happy with the prose quality. All my concerns have been addressed and I can't see anything else of concern. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TbhotchTalk C. 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply] |
---|
*General
|
- Neutral
to Weak opposeIf you want to make a B+ article is up to you. The lead still needing tweaks, I'm not an English speaker, but some issues are obvious. I really don't want to discuss about the citations, but if you want to follow to other lazy users (do not take it as a personal attack, because it is not) that do not want to fill all the parameters of the citation web ({{cite web |url= |title= |first= |last= |author= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |month= |year= |work= |publisher= |location= |page= |pages= |at= |language= |trans_title= |format= |doi= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |accessdate= |quote= |ref= |separator= |postscript= }}) is not my problem. They exist and is for a reason, I've never passed/supported an article through GA, FA or FL, if the basic usage ({{cite web |url= |title= |first= |last= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate= }}) is not present, and of course, this won't be the only exception. TbhotchTalk C. 04:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]- I don't spot any obvious issues. It's rather rude and annoying if you say there are problems but don't provide suggestions for improvement... sorry, but no matter how you wish to put it, "lazy" is a disrespectful comment that was not necessary.
MostA good amount of of the websites used here publish themselves, and as I have already said several times, the publisher field is already occupied in many refs (as a replacement for the work field for non-print sources). –Chase (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Sigh... I'm probably just being difficult. Publishers have been added. Some had to be added as an addition to an already-occupied field so I'm not sure if those were done correctly. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Austrian, Canadian, German, Irish, New Zealand, Swiss and British is an example, Austrian, Irish and Swiss are gentilics, New Zealand no, also why is the British at the end while the others are in alphabetical order?
- Sigh... I'm probably just being difficult. Publishers have been added. Some had to be added as an addition to an already-occupied field so I'm not sure if those were done correctly. –Chase (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't spot any obvious issues. It's rather rude and annoying if you say there are problems but don't provide suggestions for improvement... sorry, but no matter how you wish to put it, "lazy" is a disrespectful comment that was not necessary.
- peaked at number two in the United States and topped -> would not be better list the "best" position first, just because she is American we not need to be remembered in each line.
- It does not follow our policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, we know that she is having her fame but lines like were international number one hits. They were followed by the successful singles, yes were well-received, but you cannot praise them when they are not "Poker Face" or "Bad Romance" TbhotchTalk C. 16:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly is this not neutral? "Just Dance", "Poker Face", and "Bad Romance" were number one hits in many countries, hence they were international number ones. I'm just stating facts here, there's nothing POV about it. And again, nowhere is it said that the last singles from The Fame were as successful as "Poker Face" or "Bad Romance". It is simply said that they were successful, which is, again, a fact. –Chase (talk) 16:34, 6 September 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 23:49, 3 September 2010 [10].
List of accolades received by An Education
- Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I present to you yet another film accolades list. This time round, I created it entirely from scratch and worked on it off Wiki until I was happy that it met the criteria. I was not aware that the film had received as many awards and nominations that it has, as the table in the film's article was (very) incomplete. I look forward, as always, to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I gave it a copy edit, made a few minor fixes in the refs, but nothing major. Although my FL experience is limited, as far as I can see, this meets the criteria. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help & support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I updated the links to reference 5 and 8 so they point to non-redirecting links. I corrected the win count for one award in the infobox. I found no other problems. From what I can tell it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Great work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work, and thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:30, 3 September 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 23:49, 3 September 2010 [11].
Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine
Having finished Novels, Novellas, Novelettes, Short Stories, and Related Works, our Hugo Award journey continues on to one of the original categories, Best Professional Magazine. This is the first category brought to FLC that no longer exists, having been replaced in 1973 with an award specifically for editors. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been addressed here as well. --PresN 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Good work. Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets criteria. I found no problems. Good work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support you got the blueprint by now. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 26 August 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 23:49, 3 September 2010 [12].
Glee (season 1)
- Nominator(s): CycloneGU (talk), Frickative (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am co-nominating this for featured list with Frickative because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). We've worked hard on this and hope it qualifies to be among the best. We will both be watching this and addressing any concerns in the process. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per nom). CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as co-nominator). The article has undergone thorough editing over the past week to ensure it is up to the necessary standard, and I believe that it is of comparable quality to other featured lists on television seasons. Frickative 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment–no dab links, no dead external links. By the way, it's not customary for nominators to support: the FL directors are looking for uninvolved support. Ucucha 06:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." 13 plus 12 does not equal to 22. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note My previous comments can be found at the talk page of this nomination Matthewedwards : Chat 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's OK to nom this for FL. While everything Matthew says is true, this is an area where we don't always follow summary style. They jumped the gun a little bit, but Glee has been renewed for a third season already, and the second is only a month away. This is what this article should look like in few months, and a lot of effort has gone into this FL review, so I think you should just review what's here without regard to the other articles. As soon as the second season premiere airs next month, the two parent articles will begin to diverge significantly, or at least they should. I think there's a lot of Glee episode GAs too, but I wouldn't overthink it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's why I didn't go and AFD it. When the second season airs and if it gets as much coverage as the first, it's likely that season pages will be valid as the series page gives a summary overview of both seasons and everything else. I think you're wrong though, that "this is what the article should look like in a few months". There is so much valuable detail in that series page that is missing here, and when the series page is developed and expanded over the course of the second season, it will likely disappear. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually compared to the articles, and was just speaking in general. If you're talking about FA vs FL season pages, I prefer the FA versions. I think it's kinda silly you can't have a fat production section and then nom for either FA or FL, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding issue: Perhaps you could rename the DVD and Blu-Ray release section to "Home media releases" which would allow you to introduce the fact that the season was available at iTunes, V-Cast on the Verizon Wireless network, Sprint PCS, Zune for the X-Box, Hulu, etc.
You've done some real good work on this page during this nomination. Most of my concerns are met now. I believe the page has got the right amount of information now, and it no longer serves as a summary of Glee (TV series) (which now correctly serves as an overview of the entire series).
The only thing now is to think about whether this still qualifies as FL over FA. Previously it did. There was the episode list, a cast list, a crew list, a list of DVD info, a list of awards and nominations. The only thing that really wasn't a list was the reception part. Now though, it seems to me to be more of an article with a list. There's a lot more prose and detail in the production section. There's more info in the character section, so it is now less of a cast list in prose form. The award section is still listy, but they usually are. I don't mean to say that it shouldn't be listed at FLC any more, just that it could be listed at FAC and its something to consider. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it depends whether you regard FAC higher than FLC, or whether you think our readers do, and if you want to have the chance of it appearing on the main page. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree Matt, primarily on the basis of how the info is presented. The "cast" section is really just a list of who appeared on the show, and not really a prose of casting information about selecting actors, how those actors characterized their roles, etc. When you look at WP:MOSTV, the article would get caught up in a debate on comprehensiveness. The production section is largely a broadcast history and less a production history. It does do well with the info on musical information, but there is other stuff going on with the show (storylines, character development), which are largely absent. Some of the music in "Production" also seems more relevant to the "Music" section under "Reception". Because it talks about the release of 5 CDs, which has nothing to do with the production of a show. Given that this show is about singing and dancing, and the production section doesn't cover the latter, it wouldn't meet the FAC criteria. I think if the production section was more developed and spent more time talking about actual production of episodes and not broadcast history and the release of records, it probably would be a good candidate for FA (over FL) because the rest of the page is great. It's just, when I read the "Production" section....if I removed the info that isn't really production, that section would probably only have the 3rd and 4th paragraphs left, with everything else needing to be either placed somewhere else, or dropped entirely (i.e. the first paragraph is redundant to the episode table because you're just listing people who wrote and directed episode...which the table does already...there's no context as to why that was important enough to be separated on its own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, both of you :) Matthew, I'm really glad you feel that most of your concerns have been addressed, and I'll try and fix up the home media section asap. Re: FL vs. FA - I've given the current season FAs a careful read through, and my gut feeling is similar to Bignole's comments. I think this article would fall down on broadness of coverage because of the "Production" section. The existing FAs have very detailed sections on "Writing", "Filming" (and "Effects" in the case of the Smallville/Supernatural articles), and while there are multiple good sources available on the "Music" element of Glee, I believe the former two sections are sparse on coverage at the present time. My instinct is to continue with the article at FLC at present, and if, in the future, there is information available with which the "Production" section can be expanded, perhaps try for FA at a later date. Frickative 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to have a slight difference in opinion here. I agree that the Production section is our biggest obstacle here. The thing is we don't have good sources regarding the filming of Glee; even a search for "filming in Glee season 1" brings up "They started filming Season 2!" and other similar results (I also tried "conception of glee"), and nothing about production of the show itself. I did find a fantastic picture of Britney Spears playing Maude on the show, however (too bad it's a blog). The writers, I think, tend to talk more about the music and discussions of future plots and twists, but there is no detail on a lot of the normal production information you'd expect in these articles. My point is that just because we don't have any real information on things that normally would be in a television season article shouldn't detract from whether the article is well-written. If the information isn't available, we can't say it, and a section will appear bland in comparison. We've still provided all of the information we DO have, even if it is music; once again, music is a heavy element of the show's production more than anything else. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you have to show that the information isn't available. Given that a simple Google search cannot prove a negative, you'd need someone with a LexisNexis account to be able to search a much broader searching field. Plus, I still think the lack of info on choregraphy and other dance elements is a big deficiency. The show is about character development, singing, and dancing. You got the music covered, but nothing else. Now, the individual episode pages seem to have more true production info, but you cannot duplicate what's there to this page because it would mean that those pages are unnecessary. That's the Catch-22. You can fill this page out more by putting more info on individual episodes here, but then that would negate the need for those individual episode pages because they would otherwise create the same problem that Matt brought up originally---multiple pages saying the exact same thing. The difference between this page and other FL seasons with the few FA season pages we have is that those "article" pages don't typically have more than a couple episode articles. The rest of the episode info is on those season pages. You'd have a hard time meeting criteria for comrehensiveness when you have 22 episodes to cover on this page and you don't really cover any. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point noted. But we can't simply move the information to the Season 1 article from the episode articles because then we'd be having a detrimental effect on the episode articles. We probably could add some information on special locations for filming (such as in April when they filmed the finale to an audience of Gleeks from Twitter and Facebook), but there isn't a lot we can put in without simply copying the other articles. How much coverage would be needed to make it comprehensive? CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the page to Smallville, Supernatural, and Parks and Recreation (which are the only 3 series I know of that have "articles" for season pages). My fear is that, it sets a principle that "comprehensive" doesn't actually mean comprehensive in the future. If the info is on the episode pages, that's perfectly fine. This page does not need to be FA, it can be FL (though some things probably need to be eliminated because of redundancy in this article alone, let alone across multiple articles). When you look at this production section, it's largely non-existent. Only two paragraphs really talk about any production related information, and they aren't really lengthy paragraphs at that. It's just missing a lot for coverage. There isn't truly a lot of info on the music for a 22 episode series, nothing on any dance routines, and for a show that deals a lot with human drama there's really nothing as far as that goes either. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I am replying late to this. I do agree that this page lacks information on dance routines, production, and so on. You refer to this as the Catch-22, and I fully agree; we can put that information here, but it then could make one or more episode pages unnecessary. Perhaps we can cover information on some of the more memorable routines, for example, and maximum of one per episode, but it would clutter the page unnecessarily to have 22 dance routine discussions on the article, so that is out. Maybe two or three of the more memorable ones could be used, and this would tie into production, but the question is which ones we can cover best in the article to give the detail that would meet the criteria.
- On another note, I have seen two opinions from other editors off of this page supporting this article as a potential FAC, not just an FLC. Dabomb87 and DocKino have both made such comments (the former comparing it to the first time I took it to FAC without a peer review), and while I don't intend to copy their comments to this FLC or start long discussions on their talk pages, it does show one of the great things about a community such as Wikipedia in having a great group of diverse people with diverse opinions, and we all have the same goal of making this such a great wealth of information for free for everyone. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think just a couple of routines wouldn't be enough, because a couple of routines can be covered in a couple of sentences and the section is lacking by more than just a couple of sentences. Personally, I think given what appears to be a huge critical response for each episode (the reception sections are rather fleshed out compared to most episode articles) I wouldn't try and trim any episodes. You have three options when it comes to the production info. You can either remove it from certain/most episode pages and place it here, which would flesh out this page closer to comprehensiveness; or you can copy and paste leaving it on both. If it's on both, then it makes it redundant on one of the pages and this page would most likely be deemed the unnecessary one given the strong critical reception each episode gets. As such, the third option is to not change anything and leave this page as a list. I'm not sure why there is a push to force this page to be an article when it doesn't seem to naturally flow in that category. There is nothing wrong with it being a list (which is actually the most common form for season pages, especially when episodes are so well discussed in the media). I think, unless there is significant coverage on production info for the season that isn't directed at specific episodes (e.g., see Smallville (season 9) or Smallville (season 10) to see how info can be established on a more general scale in significant depth), then I wouldn't try and create bigger problems with multiple pages by trying to pick and choose what to snatch from episode pages and then either be left with diminished episode pages or redundant material (which was an issue this page had at the start of this FLC). I think it fits the "list" category better right now (though it certainly has a strong reception section than any season list or article), which is what I support for this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying anything is wrong with being an FL over an FA. I'm just saying that the article is on a fence. My requests of the editors in question were to simply give a straight opinion without review on which category it better fits, and I linked to them for that reason only to include them since another comment appears below this string here. My main thing to take away is that if some people think it fits FA, then it likely fits FL as well in their opinion.
- As for why I'm coming up with ideas to get more production info in, it's only for completeness purposes. If you think having more info on musical numbers would fit the article/list well, then we should try to include it. With or without it, if it doesn't still qualify for FA, then we still have a very good FL candidate here and I think we'll both be proud of that, pass or fail (and for me, my first that I've helped spruce up, even if only as a minor contributor). =) We've been debating running the page for FA again, but we'll let this run its course first and determine the best action after that, pass or fail. CycloneGU (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was asked to look over this to weigh in on if it's better fitting as a list or an article. Doing a read-through, I can say this: This is essentially a slightly more prose-driven season list than others. That being said, everything structurally and comprehensively is equivalent to that of a season Featured List. Just with more prose than usual. So, I'd say this is definitely better suited for FL and not FAC. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 03:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- support Sorry. Been away for a few days and didn't get chance to follow up. As I've said before, I haven't reviewed the episode summaries at all because I don't want to be spoiled for when the DVDs come out next month, but with regard to everything else, I support this becoming a FL. I feel it meets the criteria and all other WP policies and relevant guidelines. Nice work on getting Summary Style and article hierarchy sorted out. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
Until the DVD image is removed or a much, much better rationale written, I must oppose. Courcelles 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support If and only if the non-free content stays out. If you reinsert it, please contact me to examine the FUR you write for it. Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I don't know if this was mentioned, but could the production be moved under the episode list? I doubt it would make or break the FA status, just wondering. ChaosMasterChat 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. The only reason "Production" leads at the moment is because having "Episodes" first would have left a large whitespace when there was an ibox image. Now the image is out, there's no reason not to shuffle the sections, so I'll change it now. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - In case it wasn't clear in the long winded reply above. I also support the page with the DVD cover art, because that is the standard practice of ALL season pages (whether articles or lists) right now and if someone has an issue with this page then they need to bring it up at WP:TV to change it across the board and not simply trying to change a single page. (i.e. I'd put the image back in) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry if they've been covered/discussed above, a little TLDR for me) - just a few that I found on a quick read.
.*"Australia,[103], Ireland,[88]" spare comma after [103].
|
- 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 23:49, 3 September 2010 [13].
2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have reformatted this identically like 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and feel it is equally high caliber.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—dab links to Center and Jeff Teague, and a dead external link to http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1089222.html . Ucucha 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- dabs fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- dead link fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- It looks good to me and I would support this nomination (but I just did a quick review of the article). I generally prefer the template going below the references section, but that is not a big thing. Remember (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New comment - I would suggest changing the following sentence in the lead to read as follows (insert in bold): The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list that includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) drawn from the 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
|
- Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here.
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will call WP:WPCBB and WP:NBA and get opinions on whether they would prefer to have things like Conference POYs and first overall draft pick added. I would prefer not to add conference POY. Not averse to national statistical champions or number 1 draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Jrcla2 thoughts re: Notes column
That's all I can think of for the moment. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. Sorry I forgot to add my !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the major National awards (Cousy, Freshman of the Year, Defensive POY, etc.) as well as NCAA Tournament MOP should be noted. Only other special case could be if the player received the honor posthumously. like Hank Gathers or Wayne Estes - but that's obviously a pretty rare and extreme case. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just took another look - I think the position key should be no more than 5 positions - PG, SG, C, PF and SF. If a player played more than one position, it can be noted as "PF-C" or "PG-SG" without having to note things like "swingman." People can figure it out and the key will be short and sweet. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the legend from 2010 where some of the combination positions are necessary. Now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think the "By Player" list's default sort should be by Consensus points vs. starting with the AP team as the first five. People can always sort by the various granting parties if they are interested. Just my opinion on this one. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the default order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know this was feedback from this or the 2010 nomination, but I am not a fan of listing the Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans. These lists are less All-American teams and more the finalist lists for these awards. I think the information is intresting and notable, but probably should reside on the pages for thos awards. This might take an overhaul to those pages to fit it cleanly, but my opinion is that would be the place for it to go. Also, I would recommend a deparate discussion about the format of these on Talk:WP CBB before we get too far along on converting the 70+ pages. I think good feedback is coming in as these are nominated as FLs, but we should have a WP:CBB POV on what info should be in vs. out, formats, etc. - especially when we look at what info is scalable to All-America lists from 40+ years ago. Probably would require inviting in all the regulars since not everyone checks the project page that often. Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the thing to do is to call all concerned parties here and settle it now. Then implement it on the two lists currently in the FL domain. Whatever is agreed to here will probably be the default format for 2011 and years forward. Not so sure how much historical improvement is likely outside of the WP:CUP. I am going to post a notice on the talk page noting the disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling. It IS important that the historical lists in the same format over time - this is the right thing to do to enable ease of use for readers and is frankly one of the reasons you have Wikipedia projects. I don't mind doing some of the work, but considering I did 98% of the work getting the 1939-2008 articles in the current format, I kind of feel I've "done my time" on them and would like to concentrate on new material:
- As content, each list should include the consensus teams, individual teams and Academic AA teams. The new sortable list of all players is also helpful.
- Only the teams used to determine the consensus teams should be included - this is a clear standard on what to include and not include and matches what the NCAA record book officially tracks. IE - no Wooden teams, Lowe's teams, ESPN.com teams, etc.
- Use only the 5 positions on the court to show what position players play - SF, PF, C, SG, PG. I'd even be comfortable limiting it to three (G, F, C). Use dashes or slashes to show a player logged time at more than one position.
- Keep the Academic All-Americans but only wikilink those with current Wikipedia articles. These guys are not necessarily notable due to their basketball achievements and articles don't need to be created (and in most cases shouldn't be created)
- We need to decide on if we should keep the AP honorable mention list. I think it is interesting information and is often noted on mid-major star players' articles, but it's just a really long list and the format is ugly (I created it so I have no problem admitting that). However, showing the team as a big vertical list gives the topic way too much real estate in the article. The issue gets worse once you start to document the HM AA's from the 80s - where the lists are sometimes close to 100 players.
- Might be interesting to add the AP Preseason All-Americans so the pre- and post- season selections can be compared. These started in the 1986-87 season. Others need to weigh in on this idea.
- I think we should keep all players included on lists by all-selectors regardless of whether they contribute to consensus. Thus, HM as well as 4th and 5th teams should be included.
- I will repeat my assertion that every player does NOT need to be cited on these articles to their University player pages. To me, the citing should prove that the teams are who the article says (or that any notes about honors are legit or that any statements in the lead are valid) - NOT to prove the players exist or that they played for the team listed. This info is confirmed in the All-American releases and is linked at the individual Wikipedia player pages - which are all just a click away from the All-American article itself.
- I just think these refs give quick access to the performance of the players on the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table abbreviation keys for the consensus teams and player lists are too big and obtrusive right now. Can the font be made smaller, the items listed in something other than a purely vertical table, etc.
- Notes on the player table should only cover major awards tracked by the NCAA record book. IE - no Athlon, FOX, ESPN, etc Player of the Year awards. Again, a clear standard vs. confusion on what to include vs. not.
- I have no problem. Either all-national in scope or all included in NCAA record book. Either way is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure there are many discussion points we could have, but those are good starters before project team members go off and try to retro-fit the existing articles. Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say if you're not going to list the Wooden and Lowes' All-Americans, then all mention of such things should be totally expunged from the lede. Though what makes it worth getting rid of those, and yet keeping the Academic lists? Courcelles 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Support in present condition. Courcelles 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I'll surprise you and support as well. My issues don't have to do with the quality of the article as an FL candidate, they just have to do with general WP:CBB POV. That's why I suggested a discussion there as opposed to on this nomination. I think there are a lot of policy issues to figure out for the project and this nomination just surfaced some of them. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 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.