Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Promote 2 |
promote 7 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago White Sox managers/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Babe Ruth Award/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of official County Championship winners/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Clemson Tigers head football coaches/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. managers/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 50/80cc Motorcycle World Champions/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Arkansas Razorbacks head football coaches/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T–V)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (T–V)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of the largest genera of flowering plants/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of the largest genera of flowering plants/archive1}} |
Revision as of 19:57, 12 November 2011
- 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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, similar to other similar featured lists such as List of Oakland Athletics managers. Rlendog (talk) 01:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Well done. — KV5 • Talk • 19:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Gave list a copyedit earlier and found it to be good. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 6 November 2011 (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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this article is at FL status, or will be once I make any corrections suggested by reviewers. It is modeled after World Series Most Valuable Player Award, a FL. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Bagumba
More comments:
—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments III:
—Bagumba (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Issues addressed to meet FL standards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Rlendog:
|
- Support - issues addressed. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2011 (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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets the FL criteria. It is loosely modelled off current FLs such as List of Israeli football champions. Harrias talk 12:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from HonorTheKing (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support, With those said.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Apart from these points the list looks in good shape. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport –"After a meeting of the principle club's secretaries in 1889" "club's" → "clubs'".Other than that this list looks great. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: good spot! Harrias talk 06:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
{| class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" |- !scope="col"| Club !scope="col"| Titles !scope="col"| Championship-winning seasons |- !scope="row"| [[Yorkshire County Cricket Club|Yorkshire]] |align=center| {{sort|305|{{nobr|30 + 1 shared}}}} | 1893, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1901, 1902, 1905, 1908, 1912, 1919, 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1937, 1938, 1939, 1946, ''1949 (shared)'', 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1966, 1967, 1968, 2001 |} Harrias talk 14:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2011 (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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. I have patterned the list off of FLs List of Alabama Crimson Tide football head coaches, List of Auburn Tigers head football coaches, and List of Tennessee Volunteers head football coaches; and current FLC List of Arkansas Razorbacks head football coaches, all by User:Patriarca12. Any comments are appreciated. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 00:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"with .833 his three years in Clemson." Missing "for" or "in" after the percentage?- Added an "in". Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The conference wins and losses columns are sorting oddly. May need some sort templates for them.- Done. Overall ties was doing the same thing. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In ref 3, the p. should be pp. instead, since the cite is to more than one page.
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from KV5
All I can see is to remove the spaces between entries and indicators (just daggers in this case). Well done otherwise. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done and thanks. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just now noticed that the daggers do not have alt text (this is why the dagger template exists) and those entries should be {{nowrap}}ped so that the dagger stays attached to the last name. — KV5 • Talk • 17:57, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thanks. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 03:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- 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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): U+003F? 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to lists on Liverpool and Birmingham (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F? 09:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Nice to see a list about a local team (I live in Chester) getting nominated. If you want any input with further articles or lists I'd be happy to help :) Overall, its very good, great work. NapHit (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All my concerns have been satisfactorily dealt with and I'm happy the list is of featured quality. Well done NapHit (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Opening sentence, we know its a club from its full name, so the rest of it doesn't make sense. And a club is a collective word, hence shouldn't be plural. Try, "Tranmere Rovers Football Club was founded in 1884, and was/is based in Birkenhead, Wirral."
- I disagree with the second half of your comment. The discretionary plural is commonly applied to sports teams in British English. Whilst I don't think either form (singular or plural) is more correct, I tend to prefer Tranmere/the club/the team are... U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- though the directors continued to pick the team --> What is the significance of this phrase? Were the directors supposed to be involved in picking a manager also? Its not clear.
- Changed to "continued to choose the team for each game". Is that clearer? U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- where they were, again, founder members --> you don't need the commas here. works fine as a continuous sentence
- he introduced an all-white strip --> This is not clear, was it the cloths or mascot or waht?
- Replaced strip with kit, is that more clear? U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and making 241 appearances --> appearances as?
- Reordered sentence for clarity. U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Betweem Aldridge and Parry, there seems to be no mention of the intermediate managers? What did they do wrong?
- I don't think it's necessary to mention all the managers. As it stands, the history focuses on those who've won something. U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the "To" column not sorted?
- There should be a heading for the column containing references to the statistics.
- 1913–4 --> 1913–14
- Check the date ranges in the notes section. 1939–1942 should be 1939–42.
- In the references, what is "Footy Mad"?
See response to NapHit comment above. U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- done U+003F? 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes tranmererovers a reliable source?
- Do you refer to tranmererovers.co.uk, currently used in three refs? That's the club's official website, so it's hard to see how it could not be reliable for info on the club...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, alt text for Image:Bert_Cooke.jpg is wrong. Please see WP:ALT. — Legolas (talk2me) 19:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plumped for |alt=refer to caption, but am not certain this is any better. U+003F? 21:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]It was changed to |alt=Black and white photograph of a man wearing a flat cap and a suit, but I think this is wrong too, as per the context example. Anyone with more experience of alt text know the right way? U+003F? 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to |alt=Black and white photograph of Bert Cooke. U+003F? 12:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Righty-ho. Thanks for all the comments, I've dealt with your criticisms as best I can. Are there any outstanding issues? U+003F? 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey U+003F, sorry for returning sooooo late to the nomination. i had personal issues to deal with and was on leave. Anyways, I can surely support the nomination, seeing that my comments are dealt with and I did not see any other errors. TRM or DAbomb, you can close this now. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- What makes Historical Football Kits (ref 17) a reliable source?
- I would argue that the site has a comprehensive and well-researched kit history for all British teams. But I don't know how to be certain of its reliability, other than the rather tame note that it's used on other featured pages (such as Arsenal F.C.) But if it's not good enough, I could change "these have been Tranmere's usual colours since" to a weaker statement about these being Tranmere's colours today. U+003F? 09:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HFK creator David Moor is a published author on the subject of football kits (see here) - does that help at all....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not 100% sure one way or the other. I think I'll leave this out so other reviewers can have a look. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HFK creator David Moor is a published author on the subject of football kits (see here) - does that help at all....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that the site has a comprehensive and well-researched kit history for all British teams. But I don't know how to be certain of its reliability, other than the rather tame note that it's used on other featured pages (such as Arsenal F.C.) But if it's not good enough, I could change "these have been Tranmere's usual colours since" to a weaker statement about these being Tranmere's colours today. U+003F? 09:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't strike a reviewer's comments before they've had a chance to look at the changes. It goes against FLC instructions and creates problems if further work is needed on an issue (it happens more than you'd think). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Live and learn. Thanks (and thanks for the suggestions). U+003F? 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to you too for taking the time to read through the list, and for your valuable suggestions. Are any further changes needed? U+003F? 20:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from U+003F? 12:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comment
|
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work after PR and this FLC, and a pleasure to work with you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the featured list criteria. Directors I know I already have an open nomination, but it has three supports with no opposes, so I think its alright, if not feel free to remove this nom. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
"13 years after the start of the first world championships had been inaugurated." Last three words feel redundant to me."The first championship in 1962 awarded points from first to six place". "six" → "sixth".Also, the comma after this should be a semi-colon, I think."Stefan Dorflinger won the second most championships second with four." Excess "second" here, and there's a missing "and" immediately after the comma here."Swiss and German riders were second with four and Dutch riders were third with three". The Dutch riders would be fourth, not third, since there was a tie for second.Now it doesn't say how many wins the Swiss and German riders had.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really should double-check the changes, anyway I've fixed it. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to link the 1962 or 1989 seasons twice in the lead. 1989 is actually linked three times.Footnotes A and B: Is the serial comma being used or not? It is for A, but not B. Should be consistent in both.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments Giants, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed the serial comma issue as well. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see the comma in that sentence (from the second comment). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just seen that comment that was not struck, should be sorted now. NapHit (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still see the comma in that sentence (from the second comment). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fixed the serial comma issue as well. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
Overall a well-composed list. Arsenikk (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
Otherwise, the list looks very good work: well done. Harrias talk 10:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support: nice work. Harrias talk 11:59, 12 November 2011 (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 19:57, 12 November 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it incorporates all of the comments from the three previously FL promoted SEC coaches' lists (Alabama, Auburn and Tennessee). Hopefully I have caught most of the issues, but there is always something after a fresh set of eyes looks at it. Thanks to all who take the time to look at this as all comments to better the list are greatly appreciated. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment
- George McLaren is a member of the College Football Hall of Fame. He went in as a player not a coach. Maybe change the Key to read "Elected to the College Football Hall of Fame as a coach" 09er (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 09:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Patriarca12, the prevailing standard is to note HOF induction as either a player or a coach (e.g. List of Michigan Wolverines head football coaches). So, I reverted your change to the table key and added the HOF notation for McLaren. You may want to add a note to qualify McLaren's induction as a player, as a I have done for Jim Crowley here: List of college football coaches with a .750 winning percentage. Jweiss11 (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
Typo in Key: "Overall loses".
- Fixed Jweiss11 (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22 doesn't say Arkansas lost the bowl game in question, and the list doesn't have anything mentioning it. I'd say it could use another reference.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added an additional reference regarding the actual loss. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is too wide for my screen, forcing me to scroll sideways to view the whole table, which is less than ideal. Could you remove the no wrap element in the awards section to remedy this? I appreciate it would make that slightly more difficult to follow, but on the other hand, it would make the whole table easier to see! (The Lists you mention in your nomination all have this problem too. I wouldn't oppose on these grounds, but I think it would be a better list if the width fit on a 1280 screen.
- Done.
- "..since it began play during the 1894 season. Since.." – A bit repititious on "since", could you replace one of them with another word? In fact, the last sentence of the first paragraph would probably be better phrased differently anyway. Harrias talk 16:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thanks, nice work. Harrias talk 07:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Would be more consistent if the note about the DCs in the table header be moved to the key. Reorion (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't see any issues. NapHit (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:06, 11 November 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly done, list 19 of 21. Comments welcome and to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to complain about, which I sort of expect after so many fine lists. Courcelles 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you really mean it and everyone's not just tired of me and my FT drive... haha... — KV5 • Talk • 00:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
– HonorTheKing (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the first sentence of the second paragraph, the "and 24 with" part doesn't work that well when looking at the sentence as a whole. I think the "# have had" format from earlier in the sentence would work better.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Yeah, that was a leftover from the merge of U-V into T. Now done. — KV5 • Talk • 10:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support no issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent list. I am assuming that the photo of the plaque is eligible to be used as a free image and not a derivative work, since I am no expert on such matters. Rlendog (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks like an awesome list to me. Very organized, good looking list! Very worthy!Trongphu (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:06, 11 November 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): Stemonitis (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies the criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses). Note that I know next to nothing about the topic and have not read any similar lists to compare this one against. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Good job fixing up the article. I feel this list now passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Only thing in the list that feels a little unusual to me is that the section name of the list area is indeed "List". It sounds a little plain; I'd rather see something descriptive like Largest genera.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done. I was unsure myself what to title that part. "Largest genera" is a distinct improvement; thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
- Support. Fulfills FL criteria. Parutakupiu (talk)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment
|
- Support meets the criteria, great list. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:06, 4 November 2011 [13].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Initially a quick DYK because I loved the lady in the red dress, I made this list into a proper job, with refs, alt text, scopes, no dabs, etc etc etc and had a bloody good time while doing it. I defer to the community now to decide if it's of any use as a featured list. Rest assured, real-life aside, I'll do whatever I can to ensure the nomination succeeds, and thank each and every one of you good and handsome people for spending your valuable time reading this nomination, and more so if you can spend some time reviewing the list. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- You have the first reference of BBC News as unlinked, however all the The Guardian references are linked. Any reason? To maintain consistency, you should have the first instance of every new work and publisher linked, else don't link any one at all.
- I'm linking them all because there's no guarantee which reference will hit to start with. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe per WP:ACCESS there should be a scope="row" for the primary sortable column.
- Done, I selected the fellows themselves as the primary sorting col. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since it is just four columns, I do think you can hard-code a width value to extend the table. For narrow-screen monitors its fine, but for wide-screens, the table appearts squeezed to the extreme left, and the photos to the extreme right. Since we cannot move the photos around, we can extend the table a bit more, I believe.
- Have made the cols slightly wider but I just don't want them to be too wide for our minimum supported resolution, hope that's okay for you? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, can you find some secondary reference for the inductions other than those from BFI? Its not a mandated thing, but I generally believe in supporting primary along with secondary too.
- Where I can I have, I've only used the BFI where I had too... I will have another look though since it was a few months back that I collated the list originally. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are pretty small things and can be resolved. Its a ready FL I believe. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I believe I've responded to each of your comments, and I'm grateful for you taking the time out to review the list. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list as FL. TRM, just tru to see if you can archive the BFI links. Chances are they would become dead. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - meets all criteria, a great example of a FL. Zangar (talk) 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Can't see anything wrong with it. Great job.
—Michael Jester (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.