promote 4 |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) pr2 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Up/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Registrar of the University of Oxford/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Registrar of the University of Oxford/archive1}} |
Revision as of 07:46, 15 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 The Rambling Man 07:46, 15 September 2010 [1].
List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed up for a nice off-the-beaten-path baseball list. I have a couple questions for you guys: Staxringold talkcontribs 04:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The name. Would you prefer something like List of Major League Baseball players to hit four home runs in one game? If nothing else List of MLB players follows the standard of many other lists (rather than "hitters". A pitcher could technically do it anyways).
- 2. Should a ref to the box score for the game be included where available (box score archives exist for about 60% of these)?
- Jeez, feels like just yesterday I found this page and gave it a wikitable. Here you went and fixed it up properly. (1) Yes, (2) Yes. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I hadn't even noticed! Feel free to add your name to the list as you did a lot of the technical work on the table, obviously. I'll wait on more responses before making the changes. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. I like the current title better than the one you propose above. Ucucha 11:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
- Like the current title as well.
Superscript daggers.
- Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for a fixed table width? I don't think an unfixed width would be an issue here, and the three entries that are broken over two lines on my monitor would be solved.
- Originally I copied the ref column with a set width and if one column has a set width it auto sets the table to 100% (at least on my screen) unless you define the table size. I'll leave it totally unfixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth marking losses in the table, since you mention it in the lead?
- Thought about doing this, I'll do it with red. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Mark Whiten for example," - comma after Whiten
- Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"four homer game" - four-homer becomes a compound adjective here.
- Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove "ALL CAPS" in reference in favor of title case per MOS.— KV5 • Talk • 22:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments Few minor nit-picking or thinking aloud things.
Courcelles 04:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support No need to break convention on the sorting. Courcelles 17:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"have resulted in other MLB single-game records as a result " result, result...
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my retentive issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "Four home runs generate significant offense which generally allow a team to win". "s" needed at end of "allow".
- Italics needed for publisher of reference 3 (NYT). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a great list. Dincher (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment:
That's the only issue I found; once fixed I'll support. (Which reminds me, I should get working on Seerey's bio..) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 01:46, 15 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 The Rambling Man 07:46, 15 September 2010 [6].
List of accolades received by Up
I am nominating this for featured list because although it is based on the IMDb list, I believe the article pass the FL criteria. It is well-sourced and, as far as I know, well-written. Thank you for your comments. TbhotchTalk C. 05:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment-Check links found no problems. Summary paragraph is fine. The citations seem relevant. The summary and main table do not agree. The Blimp Award is shown in main table and Kids' Choice Awards (Blimper Award) is show the in summary table. Need to add Palm Dog Award to summary table (1 nomination, 1 win). Total nominations should be 63. Total wins should be 37. --Dan Dassow (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - Looks good. My concerns were addressed. --Dan Dassow (talk) 04:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The source for the "Annie Awards" does not lead to any information like the others. Its a blank page.--PeterGriffin • Talk 22:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good now :).--PeterGriffin • Talk 03:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Impressive work. On par with the best film award lists like that of Precious. I looked in the article for a long time, but its pretty flawless. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Much as I wanted to pick apart the prose, I couldn't find anything that needed picking apart. Very nice piece of work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 04:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support. Should have looked at the history for vandalism when I saw that caption, it looked so strange. Glad that's sorted. Courcelles 04:43, 8 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 21:58, 14 September 2010 [7].
List of Washington Nationals first-round draft picks
I am nominating this for featured list because I can. This one was actually a pain to do, since there were a lot of draft picks from the same year at a few spots (I can't find a cite, but eight picks in 1997 has to be a record - and yet none of them were any good).
This list's fun fact: Fewer people are in the Baseball Hall of Fame (0) than the Canadian Football Hall of Fame (1). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
a dab link to John Patterson (baseball), and a dead link to http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft/history/_/team/wsnUcucha 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 15:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 09:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks good to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:13, 9 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 21:58, 14 September 2010 [8].
Registrar of the University of Oxford
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a while since I bored you with an FLC on the theme of the University of Oxford, so here we go - my summer holiday work.
A job with a 550-year history? Tick. No article on Wikipedia until I started this one? Tick. No article giving the same basic information (let alone the added detail) anywhere on the internet or in print? Tick. Nicely linked from existing articles? Tick. Six articles on Registrars written to remove redlinks? Tick, at no extra charge. Completely necessary mention of Peterhouse, Cambridge in the article and here to get the attention of User:The Rambling Tab? Tick. Violence? Tick. Extortionate fees charged to students? Tick. A piece of Wikipedia's very best work? (Well, you know what I think...)
What might you be thinking as you read this? Not enough images? Well, I've found one hidden on Commons and uploaded the only other free one I could find. Registrars, it seems, were shy people and / or too busy to pose for portraits... There's a problem with new thumbnails at the moment, apparently, so do not adjust your set if (like me) two of the images aren't appearing and you can only see trees. Blacklinked names, not even redlinks? Well, if they didn't get into the Dictionary of National Biography, "Who's Who" / "Who Was Who" or have a Times obituary, I'm struggling to see how much of an article could be written about them, beyond the info I give here. Is it complete? I think that all I need is confirmation of which college Alan Dorey attended as a student, which I hope to track down this week at the Guildhall Library, and then I think the details are finalised. As for the names before 1508 that would complete the 550-year history, if the university doesn't publish a fuller list of names, and if the other sources only mention a couple of people between the mid-1400s and 1508, then I don't think there's much more we can do about it. Enjoy, review! BencherliteTalk 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. BencherliteTalk 09:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the images are now working but I've removed this image of Julie Maxton because, well, it's not exactly great. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 09:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support list, the closest I've seen to Sturmvogel class so far, and removal of grumpy picture with the bizarre file name. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the current image is better than leafy trees, there is no source that painter J. Bridge died before 1940. Sandman888 (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All that I could find was that he was active between 1818 and 1854, so definitely dead by 1940. Added to image description page. BencherliteTalk 09:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 03:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Tab
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support once again, no surprises for me,
initially very poor but nowexcellent. Despite the flaws that only I will ever see and have to live with, this is a nice piece of work, and interesting too. Bonus. Good work B'lite. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Go and play with your Tractor Boys, TRM, and leave us hard-working penniless lawyers in peace...Many thanks for spending the timewreckingreviewing this list. BencherliteTalk 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I see you've made a lame legalistic attempt to master markup. For this, we are all grateful. Move along. As ever, a sheer joy to cross swords....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I've now been to the library and found the missing info about Alan Dorey. BencherliteTalk 13:17, 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 21:58, 14 September 2010 [9].
List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games
I am nominating this for featured list because... this list meets all FL criteria. NThomas (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—dab links to 2010 Alamo Bowl and Independence Stadium; no dead external links. Ucucha 05:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although the issue with key still needs to be resolved. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the following reasons:
Texas Tech bowl game occurred on January 2, 2010 when ... This is quite a meaningless sentence. Something is missing. Do you mean "The last Texas Tech game ..."?The Red Raiders' 41–31 victory over the Michigan State Spartans brought Texas Tech ... When did this happen?The Red Raiders' have made 33 bowl appearances, the 4th-most ... This repeats the second sentence in the first paragraph.Ten bowl games Texas Tech has accepted bids to, have set attendance records. This sentence should probably begin with "all" or "the".- It should start with "all" or "the" if the team had only accepted then bowl game bids. If "all" or "the" were added to the sentence, the sentence would read as if the team had set attendance records to all 10 games the team has been excepted to when they have been to 33. Maybe changing the sentence to "Ten of the thirty-three bowl games Texas Tech has been accepted bids to..." would clear that issue up? NThomas (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to have a special section for key. (There is plenty of space to the right of the main table.)
Please, use a consistent formating for ranges. Currently it is a mixture of "2004, 2005", "2001–02" and "2001–2006". Use a consistent number of digits.
- Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is currently one other featured list on bowl games, List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. This list is nowhere near the referencing and detail standards of that featured list. While I believe certain features of this list, such as the sortable game list itself, would be good to port to the Virginia Tech bowl game list, there are many aspects of the Virginia Tech list, such as the detailed lead and game capsules, that are simply not present here. I believe this article needs a significant rewrite and expansion before it can be considered a Featured List.–Grondemar 02:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're opposing this nomination because it doesn't match the "standard" "set" by the only other FL with the same title? I fail to understand which part of Featured list criteria this FLC doesn't not satisfy. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The specific criteria I would say this FLC does not meet are 2 (lead) and 3a (comprehensiveness, specifically related to the absence of the game capsules). –Grondemar 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand if you think this is alone doesn't meet those two, but you're still comparing this list to another. Because this article isn't written similar to the Virginia Tech article doesn't mean it isn't comprehensive. I thought comparing one article to another is discouraged nominations according to WP:WAX. NThomas (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the page WP:WAX links to is titled "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"; I'm not sure I agree it is fully applicable to featured content processes. I personally don't see an issue, when two lists are talking about the same aspect of two different topics, and one is already featured while the other is being nominated to be featured, in comparing the two lists to see if the candidate list is comprehensive. I don't think List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games is a bad list by any means; I do think that, in order to be fully comprehensive, the lead should at least talk about the most notable players to play for Texas Tech in bowl games, and the body should include summaries of each of the bowl games, especially for those who don't even yet have an article. –Grondemar 03:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX is applicable for this discussion as the points in makes apply to your comparison of an existing FL, not about this FLC meeting FLC. What you're talking about is something I'd expect to find in a peer review, not check to see if a submission meets nomination. This list is in a table format, not a summarized section format like the Virgina Tech list, which doesn't disqualify this list, as a table, from meeting FLC 3a. If the table should include more information to meet 3a, that would be understandable. Adding notable players to the lead would require an expansion of the table. So, what should criteria should the "notable players" included? I could also expand the lead to include which referees and umpire officiated the game. How about who the special teams coaches were? Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. The lead summarizes that is already in the table, meeting FLC 2. If you would stop comparing this list to the Virgina Tech list, I'd still appreciate to get your thoughts on what this article is lacking to meet FLC, not why this list isn't more like the Virgina Tech article. NThomas (talk) 05:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to butt in here folks. I believe NThomas has a point. We have to treat each article on its own without doing a comparison. I mean, using a random manufactured example, if Apple is a featured article, we can't compare Orange to it just because it might not have as many sources or as much information available as Apple does and not promote it based on that comment. Comprehensiveness is a per article determination, not a comparison. If it was a comparison, then Glee (season 1) would have been promoted without delay because it provides much more information than other T.V. lists, and it well-sourced, but so far we are still addressing objections. CycloneGU (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we need to judge each article and/or list individually against the criteria. However, when two articles cover similar topics, reviewing whether or not the articles discuss similar aspects is a good way to determine whether or not they are comprehensive. To use your example of Apple vs Orange: let's say the Apple article was a featured article, and included a section on the culinary uses of apples. If the Orange article was a featured article candidate, and it said nothing on that subject, it would be reasonable for someone to object on the grounds that the Orange article was not comprehensive. I don't think this is outside ; I've seen comparisons of this nature on WP:FAC relatively frequently.
Regarding whether sources are available to expand the article: they positively are. ESPN.com has game recaps for all bowl games going back to 2002. 2003 Houston Bowl is a redlink in the list; here is the ESPN game recap. For games prior to 2002 I've sure newspaper archives as well as resources such as the College Football Data Warehouse will have plenty of information. I don't believe without including this type of information this list can be considered sufficiently comprehensive to meet the featured list criteria. –Grondemar 19:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't spend anymore time debating this since we keep going in circles. NThomas (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I have nothing to do with this article and don't have an interest one way or another whether it goes FL. I do note, however, that this is an application for a Featured LIST. It is NOT an application for a featured ARTICLE. I do agree that more information is available for the subject at hand; however, things like bowl games are quite often likely to have their own pages since they are themselves notable, and the LIST article is likely to have summarized information, not an entire section of prose on each game. Thus, I still consider your argument invalid. CycloneGU (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further reading of the example you provided, I can see that these two articles are in fact COMPELTELY different. From the sounds of it, you want a complete rewrite of the article excluding the actual list, and instead prefer a list of different prose sections for each game that is available. CycloneGU (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we need to judge each article and/or list individually against the criteria. However, when two articles cover similar topics, reviewing whether or not the articles discuss similar aspects is a good way to determine whether or not they are comprehensive. To use your example of Apple vs Orange: let's say the Apple article was a featured article, and included a section on the culinary uses of apples. If the Orange article was a featured article candidate, and it said nothing on that subject, it would be reasonable for someone to object on the grounds that the Orange article was not comprehensive. I don't think this is outside ; I've seen comparisons of this nature on WP:FAC relatively frequently.
After further consideration, while I still oppose promotion of this article for the reasons I state above, I ask that, if the FLC delegates believe there is a consensus to promote outside of my oppose, to please disregard my objection and go ahead and promote the list. I am new to FLC and realize that my judgment in this instance may not be fully aligned with the FL criteria. –Grondemar 01:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reconsidered my position after reading Giants2008's Support, and have decided to strike my oppose. I would like to see articles created for the missing bowl games before I could be persuaded to support myself, however. –Grondemar 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment What is sourcing the attendance figures? Courcelles 06:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As much as I like the VT and UConn formats, there's nothing in the criteria to mandate it, and this list passes comprehensiveness requirements. Courcelles 21:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – I was asked to come back here by Dabomb87 to give a final verdict. While I like the extended game recaps in the Connecticut list, I'm loath to say that they should be standard for all lists of this type. Many lists that come through FLC are similar or slightly improved versions of what has come before. Often, it's difficult for someone who wants to try something different in a list with a previously standard format. I'm still not sure in my own mind which of the two formats in question here is better, but if FL criteria are met, that's all that matters to me. In my mind, they are. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:10, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - where a record attendance is denoted, does that mean a record attendance for any bowl game involving Texas? For any game involving Texas at all? For any iteration of that particular bowl? For any bowl game at all? It's not at all clear to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it means that the particular game was the attendance record for that particular bowl game. So, like the 60,127 in attendance for the 1965 Gator Bowl was the record attendance for the Gator Bowl, but that number was later eclipsed. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
**Consider creating at least stubs for the redlinked games.
|
Support looks to be comprehensive, well-formatted, well-cited, and visually pleasing. As I mentioned earlier, I'm in favor of the format. A few suggestions to go along with my support !vote.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:40, 9 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 21:58, 14 September 2010 [10].
George Orwell bibliography
- Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I put a lot of work into it, it appears comprehensive, and I have addressed all of the misgivings from the first FLC nomination (which I did not make.) I am the main contributor to this article and will work with anyone who offers feedback on improving it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No dead references or dab links, which is a plus. In the Collected editions section, The Sunday Times and Private Eye should be italicized per WP:MOSTITLE. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I anticipate smaller housekeeping issues like this, which I intend to fix on an as-needed basis. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - mammoth list, so forgive me but this will be a heavily-stilted review.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Dan Dassow (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - Since this list is so large and comprehensive, I may have additional comments after a further review.
--Dan Dassow (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Strongly Support - Problems resolved to my satisfaction. --Dan Dassow (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'm unsure about the collapsing (e.g. doesn't show on my phone, which is a strong argument against), but magnificent work! Pick of the week! (if it can beat Joan Gamper Trophy, uhh now that's a tough call) Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested hiding the table in the section Full list of publications since it dominates the article. I had not considered display issues for non-PC platforms. I will retain my support regardless of whether the table is initially hidden. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As Sandman pointed out, collapsing tables in the body of an article causes WP:ACCESS problems, so I would recommend that the table is uncollapsed by default. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done For what it's worth, I simply prefer them personally and especially so if they are a hassle for browsers with JavaScript/ECMAScript implementation problems. Thanks everyone! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As Sandman pointed out, collapsing tables in the body of an article causes WP:ACCESS problems, so I would recommend that the table is uncollapsed by default. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am commenting as an editor of Orwell articles rather than an FLC regular, having been alerted to this review by a message at Talk:George Orwell. This bibliography has an admirably ambitious scope (one of the best I have seen), but the prose quality lets it down in many places. The lead section is an inadequate and oddly-sequenced summary of the author's writings, much of the commentary goes without any verification, there is inconsistent level of detailing (I've left {{specify}} and {{clarify}} tags to illustrate some instances of this), padded prose (I've removed some of the more egregious uses of "several" though eleven remain at the time of writing). There is no introduction to the "Collected editions" section, unlike the others. Beyond the prose, the references section is incomplete and inconsistent, mixing citation styles, level of detail and date formats (are either of YYYY-MM-DD and unpunctuated day/month/year really conventional British English as the editnotice claims?). The final section contains a solitary link – surely for such a popular author we can give the reader more to go on? I realise that my comments are general, but there is so much work to be done here to reach featured quality I'm not convinced it would be best to continue with this exercise without the help of editors adept at prose writing/knowledgable enough of Orwell to succinctly introduce him and point the reader to relevant high quality external links/able to sort out the references. I apologise if my tone is strident; the writing is engaging and near-comprehensive, and much better in this regard than any list I have written (including the featured ones) and I congratulate the authors. Best, Skomorokh 03:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Partially done I have addressed all of your concerns for the tags, minus one {{clarify}} that seemed pretty straight-forward to me. For that matter, the dates in the references have been amended by a script. I will continue to work on the text itself--clearly my weakest suit--tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More I have amended the text to have a more logical flow and added another external link. It seems like the biggest problems are incosistent referencing (easily fixed by the use of {{Citation}} and related templates) and the lead--my perennial weakness. I think I can work out these problems tomorrow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And more I have made consistent references using citation templates and will now take another crack at the lead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done? I've amended the lead once again to have a more logical flow from paragraph to paragraph as well as give a better overview of his body of work and the collections published since his death. Please let me know if this seems sufficient to you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- This section is a lot less perfunctory and scattered than when the list was first nominated, covers most bases – good job. I have a few comments, mostly cosmetic, to push this towards the professional standard demanded by the FLC:
- MOS:BOLDTITLE; you need not boldface the title of the article, as it is a description of the subject rather than a proper name. Some editors have an aesthetic preference for boldfacing, but in this article it appears odd to link George Orwell at the second mention rather than the first.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is comprehensive, you ought to be able to say what media the bibliography definitively encompasses, rather than "includes". If you're not certain of course, that's fine.
- Not done It's not necessary to mention that he wrote a single play or recipes in the lead; the bulk of his work is mentioned by genre or type. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Orwell was a prolific writer and" – this is a little sparse as an introduction to what sort of writer Orwell was, especially considering that the rest of the sentence does not elaborate on his being prolific. Consider moving some of the more descriptive material here.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason for choosing The Economist as the publication to quote for an assessment of Orwell?
- Response The Economist is a respected British publication which writes about political concerns, so it seems acutely relevant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "As he explained in the essay..." This sentence doesn't seem to relate to the previous one (which dwelt on his being prolific and a chronicler of English culture) – it tells us the political focus of his work. It's a bit outlandish to imply one can chronicle English culture purely through political analysis – odd structure.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's a paragraph break, where fiction is elaborated upon. Fine, but it's mixed in with chronology, and then the next paragraph starts by telling us what he primarily wrote – non-fiction. This all seems a little garbled. Some alternative approaches would be to go purely chronological ("first he wrote this, then that" and so on), or in descending order of importance ("Orwell's most significant works were...he also wrote..."). Either way you go, the most important points (wrote mostly nonfic, famous for novels, notable for political analyses) should all be summarised in a line in the opening paragraph.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "op-ed" is neologistic considering we are discussing an early 20th century writer – I doubt these were termed "op-eds" when Orwell wrote them.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are issues with run-on lines and grammar/punctuationin two places – the sentence starting "While fiction" (uses a comma, emdash and semicolon), and the one beginning "Only two compilations". You might consider breaking these up into simpler constructions – particularly in a list article, the reader ougt not expect to have to trip over too many dependent clauses and convoluted pacing.
- Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The choice of collections to finish the section is a good one, but the last line leaves the reader a little cold. It might be better to "wrap it up" more satisfactorily; for instance by addressing the legacy of Orwell's writing. Skomorokh 22:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think that the current ending is much better than the abrupt one I had before and while imperfect, is more like what you're suggesting. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Books and novels
- "Orwell composed six novels" – is it that he only composed six or only had six published? If it is known, it would be best to clarify (strictly speaking, bibliography only covers published works, so the reader might wonder why you mention composition).
- Response As mentioned in the "Other works section, he composed two unpublished novels in French. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to suggest you include years of publication after the linked novels for context, but then notice the full publication details are printed right after. Perhaps it is redundant to name and link the novels twice in such a short section?
- Response It's a bit of a rock-and-a-hard place: you want to link the first instance, but it also makes sense to link lists as they stand apart from prose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done See WP:REPEATLINK and below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response It's a bit of a rock-and-a-hard place: you want to link the first instance, but it also makes sense to link lists as they stand apart from prose. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As we are discussing only nine books, stating that several were semi-autobiographical strikes as lazy; the secondary literature ought to make clear the autobiographical extent of the books.
- Response I'm not sure that I understand the problem here... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, the prose in this section is admirably concise and to the point while covering all the important details, nice work.
Skomorokh 23:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 17:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Goodraise 10:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I share Skomorokh's concern about the immense weight you are giving to the opinion of The Economist. After all, however respected, it is only one publication.
Goodraise 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to remain neutral on this nomination, as I didn't find the time to give this fairly large article a complete review. Goodraise
Support. For a subject as weighty and with such a reputation for precision as this, it would be tempting to go on nit-picking, revising, and rethinking in pursuit of the perfect summation. It has certainly come on a great deal since this nomination. That said, the list's quality I think surpasses the modest requirements of the featured list criteria, and the encyclopaedia would be well-served to have it stand as an exemplar for the rest of its bibliographies. Skomorokh 23:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I don't think the FLC standards are "modest", I do agree this meets them. Courcelles 23:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - well-written, interesting and meets the FLC criteria.--BelovedFreak 18:31, 13 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 15:08, 11 September 2010 [11].
Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics
- Nominator(s): ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. The article content and layout is similar to others on the same topic, such as Venues of the 2008 Summer Olympics and Venues of the 2010 Winter Olympics. Thank you for taking the time to review it. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose While I look forward to seeing this list back here in a couple months, I just can't see how FL criteria 6 could ever be met in a list about an event that hasn't even started yet. No edit wars, but the content will change during the Olympics... at least, it should. Courcelles (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 01:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—a dab link to Catholic High School, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments not 100% convinced that this is unstable. If something terribly dramatic occurs at one of the venues then fine, but otherwise I expect these to be the actual venues (they are usually designated well in advance of the event) and the information about them is probably reasonably well known at this point. That notwithstanding (nor wishing to sway reviewers one way or another), some comments:
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Note Seems like I will have to change the tenses on 14 August, which is tomorrow. I'll handle that. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments – Before I begin the review, I should say, in response to a comment above, that lists should be in shape before coming here. This isn't a copy-editing service for people, and the whole process is more effective when little needs to be done here.
|
- Support – Now that all the others who reviewed this seem satisfied, I'll throw in a support as well. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment the tree subsections should be definitely be merged into a single table, and two background colors should be used (i.e. blue for the new venue, and red/yellow for the temporary ones). Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all the issues I had were solved, and the list looks like it is as best as it is going to get. Nergaal (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
Goodraise 06:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 07:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 12:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 12:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "... expected to open in 2014." - How is that relevant?
- Rephrased, do take a look now. ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 04:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "to make way for the Singapore Sports Hub expected to open after the Games." - Again, how is that relevant to the "Venues of the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics"? Goodraise 11:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really add-on information, since the national stadium of the country is usually used for major events like this. It's about the main venue, so a line of explanation regarding its selection is fine, I believe? ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 12:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator away for few days I will be away on overseas travel for a few days. I don't see any major issues/problems with the FLC right now, so if any minor issues/errors arise over the next few days, I hope someone will take the onus and correct them so long they do not impact the gist of the article. Thanks, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 14:09, 8 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 [12].
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 [13].
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 [14].
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 [15] 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 [16].
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 [17].
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 [18].
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 [19]. 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 [21].
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 [22].
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 [23].
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 [24].
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.