Giants2008 (talk | contribs) Archive 1 |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) 2f |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of camoufleurs/archive1 }} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Robert Plant discography/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan/archive2}} |
Revision as of 19:06, 17 January 2013
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:06, 17 January 2013 [1].
List of camoufleurs
- Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the people who developed military camouflage in the two world wars were a varied and interesting mixture of artists and scientists, and who contributed in surprising ways to their countries' war efforts. The topic of camouflage is far more than the designs on military uniforms, and the work of the early camoufleurs spans a wide range of deception and disguise including André Mare's observation trees and Norman Wilkinson's dazzle camouflage for ships. Artists showed leadership, too, with both Lucien-Victor Guirand de Scévola (a pastel painter) in the First World War, and Geoffrey Barkas (a film-maker) in the Second World War, moving from their civilian lives to effective and creative command. The list introduces, organizes and gives access to the biographies of these men, and helps to relate them to other camouflage articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Few quick comments
5 paragraphs is too many per WP:LEAD, need to trim it down it a bit-- Done.I think it the people could be represented in a list as oppose to bullet points, unless there is a specific reason they are in bullets.-- Done.
NapHit (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- We don't have a "camofleur" article, so perhaps this should be it?
- Nice of you, but that would be a lot more detailed than 4 paragraphs.
- Then I imagine we should. Why have a list of X when we don't have an article about X? Start with linking camoufleur (wartime) and then we can decide if this is a 3b violation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow you here? We have a list of Xs, with a bluelinked and reffed article on each X, isn't that right for a list? And there are articles on e.g. Military camouflage already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, an analogy I would find simple. Why have "List of moths" if we don't have an article about Moth? (cf. List of camofleurs vs Camofleur). Particularly when the majority of the content of the list would constitute the bulk of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, yes, I could work on it. Does that affect us here now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my take is either (a) there's not enough on camofleur to make it a standalone article, so expand this list accordingly or (b) camofleur needs its own article, in which case, if it does, can it genuinely hold this list separately from the main article (under our 3b criterion). So I think yes, it does affect this nomination from the point of view that we don't know what a main "camofleur" article would contain, so we don't know if this is just an easy spin-off list or a viable standalone list..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I can put together something on Camoufleur (wartime); it will not consist of anything listlike (any more than Moth is listlike, but will be a cited account of the kind of work they did, how they related to the military and to the art world, and what they achieved. It will certainly mention de Scevola and Barkas, though not all the others, who properly belong in a list. There's no "easy spin-off" about it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, my take is either (a) there's not enough on camofleur to make it a standalone article, so expand this list accordingly or (b) camofleur needs its own article, in which case, if it does, can it genuinely hold this list separately from the main article (under our 3b criterion). So I think yes, it does affect this nomination from the point of view that we don't know what a main "camofleur" article would contain, so we don't know if this is just an easy spin-off list or a viable standalone list..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, yes, I could work on it. Does that affect us here now? Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, an analogy I would find simple. Why have "List of moths" if we don't have an article about Moth? (cf. List of camofleurs vs Camofleur). Particularly when the majority of the content of the list would constitute the bulk of the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure I follow you here? We have a list of Xs, with a bluelinked and reffed article on each X, isn't that right for a list? And there are articles on e.g. Military camouflage already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I imagine we should. Why have a list of X when we don't have an article about X? Start with linking camoufleur (wartime) and then we can decide if this is a 3b violation! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice of you, but that would be a lot more detailed than 4 paragraphs.
Well, (last comment before bed), all I'm saying is that it's odd we have "List of X" without an "X article existing. You're now saying there's enough for an "X" article. All I'm now saying is that perhaps this list shouldn't stand alone once you have the "X" article written (i.e. you can merge the list back into the article). But we don't know that until the article exists. I'm not sure how much value there is in pursuing this list of X when X doesn't exist, since you've made it plain it's not the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good morning.) All this talk of merging back to the future article is hurting my head... I note that lists are deprecated in e.g. 'good articles', so the plan is certainly to have both, one day. Clearly we must stop this FLC now, but the obvious plan is to grow the article into 'Camoufleur' and then hive off the list when ready. It would be helpful, though, to know (my talk page rather than here...) why you're so keen on merging so I can allay those fears in slow time. Sorry to take up your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good evening)... you wouldn't necessarily need to deprecate a list into a GA as long as the main article could standalone as a GA. But if you could just confirm that you're happy for me archive this nomination for the time being, I'll do so, and if you like, we can continue any discussion relating to this at my or your talk page. Let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Good morning.) All this talk of merging back to the future article is hurting my head... I note that lists are deprecated in e.g. 'good articles', so the plan is certainly to have both, one day. Clearly we must stop this FLC now, but the obvious plan is to grow the article into 'Camoufleur' and then hive off the list when ready. It would be helpful, though, to know (my talk page rather than here...) why you're so keen on merging so I can allay those fears in slow time. Sorry to take up your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I thought I'd done that. Yes go ahead. My talk page please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't nip the dates column up so much, makes the list unnecessarily long.
- See WP:YEAR for year ranges which are in the same century.
- Don't overcapitalise, e.g. "First World War Camoufleurs" -> "First World War camoufleurs" in the table caption.
- "... April 1942. Illustration by Brian Robb" in the image caption, needs a full stop.
- Maybe me, but "is used by extension of all" I would expect that to be "is used by extension to all"....
- Have to assume good faith with seemingly OR text such as " may well have chosen"...
- "At least one Air Force officer" make it explicit it's the Royal Air Force.
- Not sure why "Surrealist" needs to be capitalised. Check other "genres".
- Be consistent with page range format, you have e.g., "54–56." but "1337–143, " and then "152–4.".
- Ref 40 has double full stop.
- Ref 42 needs to be correctly formatted.
- Where are the ISBNs for the bibliography?
- Have tried to address all these comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2013 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 19:06, 17 January 2013 [2].
Robert Plant discography
- Nominator(s): Plant's Strider (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Plant's Strider (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- One reference for the whole lead is not sufficient. Every sentence that can be contested needs a reference. Right now there are quite a lot of them.
- "nine studio albums, two compilation albums, two video albums, four collaborative albums and 42 singles." When comparing numbers they should all be in the same format. So 42 should be written out not in digits
- "He began his solo career with Pictures at Eleven in 1982, followed by 1983's The Principle of Moments." It needs to be made explicit they are albums it's too ambiguous at the moment and someone could mistake for bands
- " Although Plant avoided performing Led Zeppelin songs through much of this period, his tours in 1983 (with drummer Phil Collins) and 1985 were very successful, often performing to sold-out arena-sized venues." This has got nothing to do with the scope of the list, it's about his releases not his tours
- "Popular tracks from this period" popular according to who?
- "short-lived all-star group" I think supergroup would be better than all-star group, especially as there is an article about the term
- Too many instances of sentences starting with "In..." It's make the prose read like a list of facts, use it sparingly
- Plant has released nine albums, yet only a few are mentioned in the lead, this needs to be rectified
- Tables do not meet MOS:DTT and fail WP:DISCOG guidelines. See recently promoted discographies for how they should be formatted
- Release dates need referencing and the region that is referring to needs to be added
- Hyphens in references should be en dashes
- What makes Chartstats a reliable site?
A lot to be done before it meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- NapHit above really pointed out everything that is wrong. Style and sourcing is not adequate for a featured list.
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:30, 12 January 2013 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 21:15, 11 January 2013 [3].
List of Houston Texans Pro Bowl selections
I could go in depth about how the Texans are going to be the best team of the 2010's and such, but all I'll say is that, after what felt like an eternity of adjustments to address points made during the first FLC, I finally think this List meets the FL criteria. But that's your decision. Buggie111 (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment – I see a hyphen that should be a dash after the third word of the lead, a "have all been once" that doesn't clarify what the players have been, and a further "He has since been one more time" that also doesn't have a subject. Despite the preparation that has gone into the list, I'm still not convinced that it's ready for the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
My comments are now capped, but I hope others will offer input here to reassure me that this meets FL standards. Oh, and ref 29 needs a publisher. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like the collection of references in the lead for Johnson's appearances: try compressing them into one note, like I did at Herbie Hewett#Notes and references.
- The player column should sort by surname, not forename.
- Why aren't center and cornerback linked in the position column, and the 2011 instance of halfback?
- No explanation of the difference between starter, reserve and alternate is given.
- The second-half first paragraph appears to do little more than list all the players in the list below, which seems redundant. I appreciate the point of mentioning that Johnson has been invited five times, but to list everyone seems like overkill.
- "Foster has since been selected one more time, totaling two selections." This sentence jars a little for me: the reader can work out that one selection, plus one selection, makes two selections.
- In general the prose just doesn't really do much in my opinion. It doesn't really provide much "editorial comment" on the list below, it simply reiterates the information.
- In the table, the statistics list "xx yards", but to a layperson (like me) that means nothing. Some explanation needs to be provided.
- Chris Myers statistics seem very bare: do centers not really do anything? Also, why does this cell use capital letters, unlike the rest of the column?
- Also, the distinction between tackles and solo tackles seems odd to a layperson: is tackling normally done as a group?
- Tackles can be done as a group (two people coming from either side of a player) or by one player (one person charging head on). The same applies to sacks (half a sack is when two people sack the quarterback at the same time).
- I don't really understand what a "sack" is from the article linked to (which isn't your problem) but I'm just wondering how someone can have half a "sack"?
- 2006 Jerome Mathis column doesn't have a comma in a four digit number for yards.
- Refs #10, #11, #34, #35 use a different date format to the rest. Harrias talk 16:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the majority of your concerns. The end of the sentence regarding Foster was suggested by TBrandley in their sixth comment, so some consensus regarding that should be reached here (I'm in favor of removing). The lede length was a main concern at the previous FLC, where, despite having information from both the Houston Texans and Pro Bowl article (which I rather foolishly simply duplicated onto the list disregarding copyvio rules), both reviewers opposed based on length. I received some help about the lede from Giants2008 in October (see this), so it's probably goign to be discussed here. I'd also like some help regarding the surname sorting. Buggie111 (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pinged for a return visit on my talk page, but it is unclear why. If the reason was the surname sorting, I suggest taking a look at current candidate Euroscar, which has proper sorting, and seeing how that list formats things. It's not that hard to fix once you know what to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the lead, my friend. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I'm not sure how much help I can be. I do see Harrias' point about the lead being a little plain. Is there anything that could be added saying why the players were selected, or any unique aspects about their Pro Bowl performances? There's a place for first/most recent/most frequent selections, but perhaps some details on those aspects would help to address Harrias' concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, not really. Just the amounts of yards/TDs/FF's/INT's they recorded for the most part, except Leach and Myers. Buggie111 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I'm not sure how much help I can be. I do see Harrias' point about the lead being a little plain. Is there anything that could be added saying why the players were selected, or any unique aspects about their Pro Bowl performances? There's a place for first/most recent/most frequent selections, but perhaps some details on those aspects would help to address Harrias' concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the lead, my friend. Buggie111 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was pinged for a return visit on my talk page, but it is unclear why. If the reason was the surname sorting, I suggest taking a look at current candidate Euroscar, which has proper sorting, and seeing how that list formats things. It's not that hard to fix once you know what to do. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be out of town during the announcement of the 2013 Pro Bowlers, which means I'll only be able to add in info come the 1st. Buggie111 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, over a month after my initial comments, and the prose section is still very bland. Criteria 2 requires: "Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." Harrias talk 21:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For Brain Hoyer's sake, there's nothing much to add to it. Dpo you have any ideas? All the football related FL's (see List of Baltimore Ravens first-round picks) have about as detailed of a lead as this one, some focusing even more on the draft than the team. Buggie111 (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have any major suggestions for what to add to it, no. But just as some articles don't have enough content to ever reach Featured article status, there are lists in the same situation. Not everything can be a Featured list, and if there isn't information that provides an engaging lead, then perhaps this is such a case. Harrias talk 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2013 (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 not promoted by NapHit 11:52, 7 January 2013 [4].
List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan
I am Re-nominating the article for FLC because it now meets Featured list criteria Greatuser (t@lk)My edits 10:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and speedy close: "For the award ceremony for the Bhaskar Bollywood Awards, which is yet to be held, Balan has received one nomination" and the extremely formulaic prose in the lead suggest that the grammar still needs extensive work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid. At a quick glance:
- Still mixed dates in refs.
- Done.
- Still grammar issues in the lead.
- Done
- Overlinking issues and grammar issues in the second image caption.
- Done.
- Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).
- If i am not wrong, Neither "row" nor "col scopes" are used in article.
- Still WP:DASH issues in some of the ref titles.
Suggest a PR is used to iron out all the outstanding problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2013 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:21, 4 January 2013 [5].
59th National Film Awards
I am nominating this for featured list because since its last FLC nomination, article has gone thru lot of changes, including copy-edit by GoCE member which was a major point in last FLC. I hope to get it done this time. - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose without citations. (You k"now my detail views from my comments elsewhere and you also know that my alone's opinion doesn't count. Good luck with FLC. ) §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By citations, you mean "official citations for the awards", right? (to clarify that lack of verifiability is not the reason for your oppose).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh of course, right! My mistake. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing I can do for the citation with a possible copy-vio suspect . For other articles, those are taken from various sources so we can deal with them. Here, per copyright experts, lot of stuff is taken from a single source so its a pretty difficult situation to deal with. Besides citations, you may want to put comments on other stuff. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No other comments. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely nothing I can do for the citation with a possible copy-vio suspect . For other articles, those are taken from various sources so we can deal with them. Here, per copyright experts, lot of stuff is taken from a single source so its a pretty difficult situation to deal with. Besides citations, you may want to put comments on other stuff. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh of course, right! My mistake. §§dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By citations, you mean "official citations for the awards", right? (to clarify that lack of verifiability is not the reason for your oppose).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still weak on prose, review the lead alone....
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Firstly, the above "oppose" has no basis in fact. We cannot copy-and-paste hagiographical quotes en masse without running the risk of introducing copyright violations. If people want to see the citations, direct them to the ridiculously POV website hosting such nonsense.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note, I've reviewed the lead alone thus far and on a re-review can still find a handful of issues. I don't have the energy to review this list in depth, so I'll leave it to our other very able reviewers to iron out some of the major outstanding issues before I re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:03, 3 January 2013 [6].
List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan
- Nominator(s): A Great User ✉ ✉ 09:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the article for FLC because i think it meets Featured list criteria A Great User ✉ ✉ 09:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping in - I have joined this FLC as a co-nominator to help the main nom in removing the concerns about the list. I shall be re-checking all the concerns by the reviewer. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick oppose
- We don't consider IMDB to be a reliable source. Y
- Don't mix date formats in the refs, so, all access dates should be in the same format, all publication dates should be in the same format. Y
- Not done, see ref 31 for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y[reply]
- Now done. A Great User ✉ ✉
- Don't end the lead with the bold "this is a list of...".Y
- Clarification - Only the bold portion to be removed, or the entire sentence? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:HEAD for avoiding links in section headings, especially when you link only some of the heading. Y
- Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Y[reply]
- Grammar:
- " 2012, Where she " don't capitalise the W of where. Y
- " for Bhool Bhulaiyaa, Finally in " full stop, not a comma. Y
- " agencies - since " check WP:DASH for correct use of en-dash instead of spaced hyphen.Y
- Avoid bold links in the lead (see WP:CONTEXTLINK). Y, but confirm
- Images could use alt text. Y (I Fixed)
- Check thoroughly throughout for such clumsy errors.
- Infobox box, how can 1 win come from - nominations?
- Not done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is, for the "National Film Awards", you have one win from "–" nominations... what does that mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Fixed)[reply]
- I believe there are no formal nominations declared for the award. The award ceremony simply announces the winners, and no nominees are announced. Not completely sure though. GreatUser, mind confirming this? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "1 award out of 2 nominations" etc check WP:MOSNUM for writing numbers below ten in prose as text.
- Not done, check lead (e.g. 1st...) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Fixed by TheOriginalSoni)[reply]
- Check WP:NUMERAL]. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done, check lead (e.g. 1st...) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Fixed by TheOriginalSoni)[reply]
- How about now? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are some dates in the references in italics?
- all dates are listed in italic font when you use
{{Cite web}}
A Great User ✉ ✉ 12:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- That is incorrect, e.g. "Wikipedia". 31 December 2012. Retrieved 1 January 2013. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Y (Corrected)[reply]
- all dates are listed in italic font when you use
- For some reason thats happening automatically. If you figure it out, do tell. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps because you have code like
work=31 December 2012
? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Now i have edited like this
date=31 December 2012
A Great User ✉ ✉ 06:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now i have edited like this
- Perhaps because you have code like
- For some reason thats happening automatically. If you figure it out, do tell. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency with publications, e.g. you have "Times of India" quickly followed by "The Times of India". Consistency is required throughout. Y
- Avoid SHOUTING in refs.Y
- Ref 44 appears to be incorrectly formatted.
- Not done, now ref 43. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done All corrected A Great User ✉ ✉
- Check for violations of WP:DASH in reference titles.Y
- Ref 19, e.g., these refs need publishers, accessdates if appropriate, author names, publication dates etc if appropriate... not just a linked title.
- All corrected
That's a quick five-minute run through. A long way to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you take my comments more seriously and actually address them rather than just ignoring most of them and capping them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the lead is full of issues, you need to get it copyedited by a native English speaker:
- Don't put spaces between punctuation and references.Y
- "nominations, She Debuted" - full stop required, and no capital in Debut. Perhaps, "nominations. She made her debut..." Y
- You link Hindi, Bengali and Malayalam to the various cinema industries but your use of the links is in the context of the languages.Y
- "she was honored Filmfare Award for Best " -> "she received the Filmfare Award..."Y
- "of the year, [2] also nominated" not a good "run-on" sentence.Y
- "in the film, In 53rd Filmfare Awards" should be a full stop, and should have the word "the" before 53rd.Y
- "her 1st Filmfare" -> "her first Filmfare..."Y
- "Finally in 2010" but then you go on to talk about 2011 awards..
- fixed A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "went to give her " no idea what this means.Y
- "Category, While For her performance" - if you want that to be a comma, then "While For" should be uncapitalised...Y
- "and even she was" no idea what you're trying to say here, do you mean she was also nominated for that award?
- fixed A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the lead alone. I haven't even dared read the rest of the article apart from the look at the refs..... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Oppose the prose in the article is very poor. There are missing image alt texts, but when there is the alt text, it goes entirely against WP:ALT. For all of the individual sections, you have copied the majority of the text from the main article without attribution. See WP:PLAG. I could go on about missing full stops and punctuation, but I see no need to. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Y
(Fixed by Greatuser)[reply]
- Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now Fixed The list satisfy with WP:ALT and i have removed all edits from other internal links and I have also corrected the grammaratical mistakes. A Great User ✉ ✉ 13:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What issue is now on the page which you have still opposed i fixed all issues, WP:ALT edited, you said see WP:PLAG it now even does not have connection with Award page you said missing full stop and punctuation i also fixed what now do you find on the page please indicate it here A Great User ✉ ✉ 15:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose Before I offer a full review, I can clearly say that this list is not yet FLC ready. The peer review has not yet received enough comments and the nominator hasn't enclosed it. "A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and peer review at the same time", and "this process is not a substitute for peer review". —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Yeah you are right but i forgot to close the pr discussion but now pr has been closed., Thank You A Great User ✉ ✉ 08:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The PR hasn't got enough comments from reviewers. So far just one reviewer had visited and pointed out a couple of minor issues. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not receiving any response from user(s) except a user. and I needed suggestion but now in FLC i made too many correction to let it meet FL criteria, so i closed the discussion A Great User ✉ ✉ 13:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The PR hasn't got enough comments from reviewers. So far just one reviewer had visited and pointed out a couple of minor issues. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Yeah you are right but i forgot to close the pr discussion but now pr has been closed., Thank You A Great User ✉ ✉ 08:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised that there was also an unclosed PR by the nom, which needed to be handled first. I therefore withdraw this nomination in favour of having a PR first before going across to FLC. If any of the reviewers here can do it, it would be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like the PR has been closed. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed almost all of the specific problems raised by The Rambling Man. A copyedit shall follow soon. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All problems have been almost addresed but i need other user's support A Great User ✉ ✉ 14:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose this list is nowhere near featured standard. Going through the prose there are basic issues such as "She debuted in 2005 film..." That's not grammatically correct. The majority of that second paragraph is the same. The tables don't meet MOS:DTT, references should be placed after punctuation not straight after a word. Even the alt text doesn't make sense: "An Indian actress wearing a black Saaree with trophy holding in her hand." This needs a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker, as the prose is simply not good enough now. I suggest withdrawing this list as there is no way this list can be promoted within the timescale of this nom. NapHit (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost Fixed NapHit Thank You for your
great suggestionhelpful comment, I have corrected almost all mistakes I think now it meets criteria. again i am checking mistakesA Great User ✉ ✉ 16:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please ask someone to copyedit this for you. In one second I spotted "Actress.[4][5] (2011) went to give her fifth " in the lead prose... what?! I'm also seeing WP:DASH violations in some reference titles, some badly and/or inconsistently formatted dates in the references.... honestly, withdraw the list, get it looked at properly, and bring it back in a month or so... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I won't be commenting any more. This recent edit has introduced no fewer than five new errors. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now a perfect list grammatical and other basic mistakes has been fixed and now i am
dambabsolutely sure it meets the criteria A Great User ✉ ✉ 04:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now a perfect list grammatical and other basic mistakes has been fixed and now i am
Strong oppose Greatuser may be "damb" sure about the list; however, I can't stress enough on the large number of grammatical errors in the lead alone. The first paragraph has been completely lifted from Vidya Balan's article. Moreover, several of the sources are unreliable (Pinkvilla, OneIndia, Indicine, Glamsham...to name a few); also, the references haven't been formatted properly. In short, the list has a long, long, long way to go before it meets the featured criteria. --smarojit (buzz me) 04:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.