→Nominations: +1 |
|||
Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Office (U.S. season 9)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fairy Tail manga volumes/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fairy Tail manga volumes/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)/archive2}} |
Revision as of 20:04, 1 December 2013
Thank you for participating in the 2013 FLC Elections. The new delegates have been selected.
Elected delegates: Crisco 1492 and SchroCat. |
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects |
Featured list tools: | ||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: |
Nominations
- 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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Pune Warriors India cricketers
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The dashes in batting average should sort at the bottom, at least for the cases when the player has not batted.
- It is already like that.
- Do you want them to sort at bottom while in ascending order or while in descending order? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already like that.
- The bowling average sorts completely wrong, the 6.00 and 9.00 sort as 60.00 and 90.00. Done
- Why does batting average use emdashes, when the rest use endashes? Done Harrias talk 14:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 18:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments (re-visit)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 06:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments—on prose only,
Zia Khan 01:01, 24 December 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 promoted by Crisco 1492 13:48, February 2, 2014 [2].
List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes
Hello everyone. I am nominating this article for featured list. I have redeveloped this article based on current and previous featured episode lists. Any comments that will help the list more are welcome. Thanks in advance. :) Mediran (t • c) 04:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous(talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - I'm surprised that it's been 50 days and I've been the only person to support this! I'm having trouble as well on trying to get people to comment or support my FLC, so if you have time on your hands, please, head over to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Timberwolves head coaches/archive1 and do the same for me! :D --K.Annoyomous (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - A few comments before I can support
|
- Support - outstanding issues are not enough for me to oppose over. --PresN 19:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I will take a closer look later. For now, I suggest you split the airdate table and media release. It is stretching the page pretty badly on higher zooms. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Tentative support I don't see any glaring issues. So it's a support unless someone points out a fatal flaw. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:13, 28 January 2014 (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 Crisco 1492 00:07, 08 May 2014 (UTC) [3]].[reply]
Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year
- Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. References for the first ceremonies are hard to find, I even sent emails to Univision and Billboard magazine to find out about the nominees on the missing years, with no success. This was a hard investigation by Erick and yours truly. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Why was the first FL nomination closed? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comments: There are several red links in this list. If there is no article to the list, then it should not be linked.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed and updated with 2014 nominees. Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 in the infobox? That should also be removed if there is no link to the awards.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that red links should not be linked? According to WP:RED, red links encourage creation of articles. Premio Lo Nuestro 2013 and Premio Lo Nuestro 2014 should be linked and created. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's inconsistent in the Year column now of what is linked: the year or the order. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
- Tables must comply with WP:ACCESS. See MOS:DTT for help with this.
- I am specifically talking about WP:DTAB when it comes to WP:ACCESS. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I still do not understand what do you mean, can you give me an example? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Image alts. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Descriptions of what the award winners are wearing is not in context with the article. For example, the alt text of the Isabel Pantoja image should only be "Isabel Pantoja performing". --K.Annoyomous (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- América Sierra is not sorted properly.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Surprised "Lo Nuestro Award" is not linked in the prose in the lead somewhere.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "award" is used three times in the opening two sentences, twice in the first, a little repetitive.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nominees and winners were originally selected by a voting poll " where are the nominees for 1989, 1990 and 1994? And what does "for the majority of the years awarded" mean? The info isn't available? There were no nominees?"
- We do not have the references for the nominees, I even send emails to Univision without any response. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: The good news is that we now have the complete nominations thanks John M Baker and User:Gamaliel from the Resource Exchange for providing the article with the nominations that were other wise paywalled. Erick (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the present time" see WP:ASOF.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "by the audience through an online survey" surely just "through an online survey" or are only the "audience" allowed to vote?
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tierra de Nadie " is a dablink.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Check all non-English-language refs have a language parameter, e.g. ref 3 should have Spanish somewhere in it.
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Status
- Lead
- "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American network Univision." → "The Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year is an honor presented annually by American television network Univision at the Lo Nuestro Awards."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was first awarded in 1989 and has been given annually since." → This is repetitive using "annually" again. Suggest removing this sentence and just adding in 1989 to this sentence "The award was first presented to Desde Andalucía by Spanish singer Isabel Pantoja.".
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey." → "However, since 2004, the winners are selected through an online survey."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "for the most awards, winning on three occasions each" → "for the most wins, with three each"
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively for Aries (1994) and Segundo Romance (1995), with both earning also the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance." → "Mexican singer Luis Miguel won consecutively in 1994 for Aries and in 1995 for Segundo Romance; both albums also earned the Grammy Award for Best Latin Pop Performance."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively, and both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance with Maná receiving the award." → "In 1999, the Pop Album of the Year accolade was shared by Mexican band Maná and Shakira with Sueños Líquidos and Dónde Están los Ladrones?, respectively. Both albums were nominated at the 41st Grammy Awards for Best Latin Rock/Alternative Performance, with Maná receiving the award."
- Fixed by Erick. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Supernatural by Mexican-American band Santana also won the Grammy Award for Album of the Year." → Why exactly is this mentioned in the lead? It's the only mention of the album in the lead.
- It is mentioned in the lead because the Grammy Award for Album of the Year is one of the most important music award, and Supernatural is the only "Latin" album that received the accolade along with the Lo Nuestro Award. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this? In the preceding sentence "Spanish band La 5ª Estación, and Mexican groups Camila, Maná, Pandora, RBD, and Sin Bandera are the only musical ensembles to receive the accolade." You can throw in Santana throw and mention the Grammy Album of the Year accolade like saying "the latter group received the Grammy Award for Album of the Year" or something like that. Erick (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Status (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables
- I'm not the biggest fan of the "Winners and nominees" table. Is there any particular reason why this style was chosen? I've seen many different ways to do these sorts of tables, and I like Latin Grammy Award for Best Salsa Album the most.
- I think this table is easier to navigate. I also took several LGA list to FL status, with another template, but for this award I tried something different. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very convinced on why the "Multiple wins/nominations" table is needed.
- Most award related lists include the wins and nominations table, that's the main reason to have it here. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
— Status (talk · contribs) 01:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WikiRedactor
- Some external links that need to be corrected.
- If 2013 and 2014 don't have their own articles, I don't think that need to be redlinked in the table.
- Maybe instead of "Multiple wins/nominations", this title could be reworked as "Multiple wins and nominations"?
And that is pretty much it, since the list is already in very good shape. I trust that you will address my comments as necessary, and am happy in giving my support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not the table I'd use but it works, so I won't be picky about it. Everything else looks good. → Call me Hahc21 04:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Oh, there seems to be a dead link. Other than that, everything looks all right. You guys have done an excellent job finding the sources. – DivaKnockouts 12:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind review, we already replaced that link. Cheers! Javier Espinoza (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment you do realise that this currently isn't listed at FLC at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly did not know. Erick (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. Blasted Bot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd ask one of the delegates or the director. Since things appear to be going rather well, despite the six-month duration (!), it would be a shame to fail it now. Looking at the log, it was failed in February, but whoever failed it didn't add a closing note, hence the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What should we do about it, Mr. Rambling Man? Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a major problem, I'm guessing one of the FL directors or delegates "failed" it a while ago, but the bot didn't do it's business. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2014 (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 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC) [4].[reply]
Timeline of the 2012 Pacific hurricane season
- Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 Pacific hurricane season featured above-average activity, but minimal impact and fatalities (fortunately). I have significantly improved the status of the article and feel that it now meets the criteria to be recognized as a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dudley Miles 19:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Dudley Miles
Comments by Dudley Miles A good list. I have a few minor points.
|
- Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have only one concern, which is that of referencing: in the lede, damage from Bud and Carlotta is mentioned, yet neither is referenced. Other than that, I'm satisfied with the article. Nice one as usual, TAWX. Cloudchased (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - seems comparable to other featured timelines. Only one point of concern- "East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the central Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W to the International Date Line" - so the central Pacific is located entirely inside the East Pacific? Looks good besides that. --PresN 19:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That should say west, not east. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one concern: what's with repeating "operationally" in the third paragraph (same sentence even)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments some minor technical details...
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is most educational and encyclopedic. It is meticulously sourced throughout to appropriate citations. My only minor quibble is the title Notes for that subsection: Notes usually refers to Harvard Citations followed by a References section with the full Citations -- this type of section should be called Footnotes. Great job overall by TropicalAnalystwx13, — Cirt (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 5 February 2014 (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 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [5].[reply]
List of AFL debuts in 2008
I am nominating this for featured list status because not only do I believe it meets the criteria, but would also provide a platform to expand the ability for a greater featured content presence for Australian rules football articles (currently out of over 11,000 pages we have only four FAs and one FL). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated as I have never gone through this process before. Thanks, Allied45 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Why are AFL debuts important, and why does there have to be a list about them?
- Explain to readers that are not familiar with Australian rules football what a "debut round" is.
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (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 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [6].[reply]
List of tallest residential buildings in the world
- Nominator(s): Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the article has been substantially cited with reliable sources and is an interesting and informative article. A lot of work from major contributors has been done on this list. This article has been peer reviewed twice and all listed concerns, comments and suggestions has been addressed accordingly. This list is a former candidate of FL, however not promoted, but i have reshaped this article according to the criteria of FL and i think that this time it should be promoted to the status of FL.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find evidence of the Mubarak Center actually being under construction. Google sources say it's "pending", and there are pictures of a hole in the ground. I believe in the wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and would be reluctant to include anything that is speculative of a future event, such as pending/on hold/approved/planned buildings. Under construction is even border line but at least it's something physical to report on. Mattximus (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, i have removed Mubarak Centre, as its not on-hold. However the other one Pentominium is on-hold since its construction has been stopped at level 24 and sources can easily been found regarding its status, and its pertinent to mention about Pentominium here as its supertall skyscraper and planned to be 516 meters tall.Nabil rais2008 (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Slap a "The" in front of Council in the first sentence of both the first and second paragraphs.
- Done
- "residential skyscrapers in the world.,[3][4]" - drop the period
- Done
- "Tallest Block in the world" - you capitalize Block but not world both times you use this- either do full title capitalization or capitalize none of it.
- Done
- Also put a "the" in from of tallest in the first image caption
- Done
- There are several facts in History that you don't have references for
- Done
- "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest residential building in the world and rises" - tense, both verbs
- Done
- You define what the CTBUH is in the Ranking section, but not in the lead- that first sentence there should really be the first sentence of the lead, rather than just jumping in headfirst
- Done
- In the second paragraph of Ranking, you throw in an opening single quote for a quotation, but never close it. If it's not a quote, remove it, if it is, use "quote marks".
- Done removed quote mark, as it is not a quote.
- Several buildings are sorting by "The"; they should not. See the {{sort}} template to fix it.
- I didn't got your this point ? When i sort building they are sorted in "Alphabetical order". How they are sorting by "The" ?
- Done I have used the template, that you have given to fix it !
- The notes column should not be sortable
- Is there any way to remove the sort option from existing table ? Because i have to change whole three tables of article, that requires an exhaustive working and time.
- Done I have make section of "Notes" unsortable.
- Since you can sort the list, every instance of e.g. a city should be linked in the table, not just the "first" one, since that changes, just like how you do the country.
- Done
- The same problems apply to other three tables
- Done
- Dream Dubai Marina is missing a space before the slash in the year started / end column
- Done
- In History, you say that The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2 were completed in 2000, but your timeline table says they weren't the tallest until 2001
- Done completion date of Belcher's Tower 1 and 2 was 2000, after conforming it from CTBUH.
- You never actually state that they didn't start ranking until 2001; I would expect to see that in the lead
- Done for the reason above mentioned.
- "List of cities with most skyscrapers" in the see also section is redirecting, to its grammatically correct version
- Done
- Link Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat in your references.
- Done
- --PresN 23:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All short comings highlighted by PresN have been rectified accordingly. Please suggest a way forward. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still numerous grammatical errors:
- "The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, defines" - no comma needed, and place "(CTBUH)" after the name since you use the acronym going forward
- "formed in 1969, decides which" - "1969 that decides"
- "It maintains a list of the 100 tallest completed residential buildings in the world" - again, it hasn't always done this, it has only done this since 2000 - "It has maintained a list[...]since 2000".
- "which rises at 392 metres (1,286 ft) in Dubai it was also completed in 2012" - rises shouldn't be used that way for a static building, and you need either a period or semicolon after Dubai.
- "The third tallest residential skyscraper is Elite Residence, which rises" - again, buildings don't rise, they stand, since they don't move.
- "The Marina Torch which rises" - again
- You list the completion year of the first two, but not the positions 3-5.
- "Skyscraper database of The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat reveals that, more" - "The skyscraper database", you can use the acronym since you already used it once, and you don't need that comma.
- "more than 100 residential buildings are under construction" - rather more than that, I think you mean residential skyscrapers
- "World One in Mumbai, India set to rise" - comma after India
- " Saudi Arabia with planned height" - "with a planned height"
- "New York City, United States set to rise" - comma after States
- "release issued by Emporis Corporation" - just Emporis
- "because of a number of high-rise" - "the" number
- "is on hold since May 2011" - "has been on hold since"
- "The first residential skyscrapers were The Belcher's Tower 1 and The Belcher's Tower 2" - were they the first, or just the first since CTBUH started keeping track? Also, the whole sentence is a run-on.
- "In 2012, Princess Tower becomes the tallest" - "became"
- The second paragraph of History makes no sense- the stats you quote in the first part of the sentence have nothing to do with the second part of the sentence.
- You also shouldn't have a single-sentence paragraph. If you combine the two paragraphs, you're left with a single=paragraph section; consider moving some information out of the lead and into this section, or moving this section into somewhere else.
- The first sentence in Ranking criteria and alternatives is out of place in the section- it has nothing to do with what follows.
- I really should just oppose this- even after "fixing" my earlier issues, the article is riddled with grammatical problems and there's no coherent flow throughout the text part of the list at all. It's got good tables, and nice pictures, but you need to get a copy-editor; it's really noticeable that English is not your first language, since you mess up articles and commas pretty consistently. --PresN 02:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done All grammatical mistakes have been rectified. And i have tried my best to improve article's grammatical mistakes.
Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [7].[reply]
List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine cast members
The article is a follow up to the previously promoted List of Star Trek: The Next Generation cast members. I recently changed the format of the DS9 article in line with changes another editor made to the TNG one, and as seen on other FLs such as List of Grey's Anatomy cast members. The DS9 article is fully cited to reliable sources. Miyagawa (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, very good formatting and tabulation, appropriately referenced throughout, one fair use image used with appropriate fair use rationale given on image page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nice and solid, like the TNG list. A few comments:
- In footnote 7, link io9, and mark it as the work, with Gawker Media as the publisher.
- In footnote 28, unlink tor.com, set it as the work, and put Tor Books as the publisher.
- In the references, link Pocket Books.
- Consider archiving your online references with a tool like web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that website drift/decay doesn't wipe out your cited information in the future. --PresN 23:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A very nice list. Prose, formatting, referencing, images (well, image) all check out. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2014 (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 SchroCat 15:19, 20 January 2014 [8].
List of Nippon Professional Baseball players to hit for the cycle
When User:Killervogel5 started updating the article "Hitting for the cycle" he wanted to make it more comprehensive beyond just MLB. To help him out I put together a list of NPB cycles. The list was always in good shape but I wasn't able to find a reliable source for the cycle list so I never pursued a FL. I was finally able to find one though so I cleaned it up a bit and put finishing touches on the list. I think it looks good now. Let me know what you think! --TorsodogTalk 06:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just happened to come back to WT:MLB today totally by chance and I'm so happy to hear that you finally got this nominated! Please let me know if and when it passes - I'll come back for a command performance just to get the cycle to featured topic. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 22:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] More comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Final comment –
|
- Support – Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolves comments from K. Annoyomous |
---|
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - If you ever have time, it would be great if you create articles for all of the players, especially the Hall of Famers. Other than that, great job on the list, and I look forward to seeing more from you! --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nicely done. Only a few comments, which isn't enough for me to oppose.
- In the key- "Player recorded a natural cycle" - this sounds awkward to my ears- "Denotes a natural cycle"?
- The italic text thing in the Cycles by franchise section seems like it would run afoul of WP:ACCESS - is it even necessary, given that you give the active dates of the franchise?
- Refs 7,8,11,12,13 are missing the "Kyodo News" publisher bit that you include in 14,15,16
- Consider archiving your online references via a service like web.archive.org or webcitation.org- online refs have a nasty tendency to move, change, or get deleted years later, leaving the list with dead references.
- --PresN 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed! However refs 8, 11, 12 and 13 aren't actually from "Kyodo News" articles. It isn't the publisher of The Japan Times, they are a Japanese news agency similar to the Associated Press. The Japan Times runs articles from them time to time. Should I include the actual publisher of The Japan Times, which is The Japan Times LTD, to alleviate the confusion or is that unnecessary? --TorsodogTalk 21:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Fumio Fujimura with the Osaka Tigers and Hiromi Matsunaga with the Hankyu/Orix Braves, both with two. - when?
- I specifically left those dates out as to not clog up the lead with more and more dates. I figured they are in the table so why throw 4 more long dates into the mix if I didn't have to. Thoughts?
- That season also saw the only instance of cycles occurring on the same day: on July 1, hit by Atsunori Inaba of the Yakult Swallows and Arihito Muramatsu of the Fukuoka Daiei Hawks. - same game or different game?
- Good point! Different games. I will change to specify.
- Are the Japanese names presented in Western order (Given, Family) or traditional order (Family, Given)? A note might be worth making. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Western order. I'll look into this and see what kind of template notes are available.
- Any hall of famers? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (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 SchroCat 14:35, 15 January 2014 [9].
List of Sega CD games
- Nominator(s): Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spurred on by the successful promotion of List of Sega 32X games a few months ago, I've taken on another Sega Genesis add-on games list as I push forward for a Sega fourth-generation featured topic. This one was much harder, as the Sega CD games library is at least five times as large as the 32X library, and because of the large number of Japanese-only releases, doing an individual game page for each item on this list would be next to impossible. Thankfully, in addition to Allgame's awesome list of North American and PAL releases, Sega of Japan has a pair of master lists (in Japanese, no less) for this console that made sourcing this list possible. With Sega CD now a GA, having an accompanying FL of its games would be an excellent feat, and during the course of this candidacy, of which I believe the list is in excellent condition and ready for promotion after all of my hard work into it, I'll do whatever it takes to make that happen. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by LightLowemon
- Definitely needs a link to Sega CD somewhere in there
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...released in Europe and other regions... - how about released in PAL regions
- The first paragraph is almost an exact cut and paste of the lead from the Sega CD article, not sure if there are any rules against this though, but it seems to me that it's a bit cheap, and the information doesn't actually discuss the games as much as the unit. In theory while they should be similar, I don't think they should be the exact same.
- A large part of that would be because I wrote the lead to Sega CD, and decided to build this list off of that for consistency. If there are specific changes to be recommended, I will implement them, but I believe it's important to introduce the topic of what the Sega CD is as a unit in order to understand more about its game library and the topic of this list. It's also similar to what I've done in List of Sega 32X games, another FL. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In early 1991, Sega announced the Mega-CD for release in Japan in late 1991, North America (as the Sega CD) in 1992, and in Europe in 1993. You've already mentioned this not two sentences earlier.
- Oops... resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sega of Japan, partnering with JVC... I don't think this whole sentence is really necessary, as it relates solely to the console and not the games.
- It relates to the console, but would not a short understanding of the console be helpful to understanding this list? I don't really see this as a negative, personally, but if consensus disagrees, I'll remove it. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ... the expansion only sold as many as 2.7 million units worldwide[2] and was often criticized for its severe hardware limitations.[3] - Reference 3 says it sold 6 million and nothing about its hardware limitations, and in fact few references even talk about the severe hardware limitations, stating the issue was in the game library and the system didn't add anything to the user experience, this may have been due to the hardware limitations, but no where says that. One reference even complements it as "solid tech", the worst I could find was comments on poor FMV handling and colour limitations.
- Reference 3's sales number of 6 million has been shown systematically to be an inaccurate number. We've discussed the numbers of several sales figure postings for Sega's 16-bit era at Talk:Sega Genesis, and in particular I've worked with Indrian on ensuring that these numbers are accurately sourced. In this case, the existence of a 2.7 million number by the end of 1994, sourced to Sega itself by way of Man!ac Magazine, a German publication, shows that the GamePro number cannot be accurate. I'll remove the bit on the "hardware limitations", it's cited in some other material but perhaps console criticism is too much console criticism to maintain a focused list lead. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Need a link to the 32X in the second paragraph.
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecco The Dolphin -> Ecco the Dolphin
- Resolved. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference for criticising the lack of depth of game library.
- Again, accidental miss, but I thought it was linked. IGN article will be linked here. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the first paragraph the second and third are basically word for word the Sega CD section under Game Library, except for The Sega CD contains a large library of over 140 titles.
- See my reasoning above about the lead; I pretty much rewrote the entire Sega CD article a while ago before it attained GA status. If specific changes need to be made, I can make them as need be.
- Personally, I don't find the table very sort friendly as far as regions go, I know it's a similar style as to the other featured lists, but I'd rather something similar to List of PlayStation 3 games where each region had its own sorting. At the moment if I wanted to look for games in Japan, I have games that were released in Japan only, scroll down to NA JP, scroll down further to NA PAL JP and if there were any that were PAL JP only I'd have to scroll down again.--Lightlowemon (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting suggestion. I had not had to do that with List of Sega 32X games, but that was a much shorter list. I'll look into options for this. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Lightlowemon. I'm sure you're helping to make this a stronger list through such feedback. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm not ready to give a vote until other editors weigh in, I'm only a new voter so I'd like to see what others think about the article, and specifically the lead. --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough. I'm still always glad to have some honest feedback, and could always use more. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
- I would also like to see the three regions broken out into their own columns, kind of like List of Square Enix mobile games (I know that list is a bit shorter) - the way it is now, the sorting on the regions column doesn't really work, because you can't sort by all games released in NA, since ones where it was also released in JP don't sort with ones that weren't.
- Now that's a pretty neat way to do it; I very much like that format. It may take a little while; there are over 200 entries to correct for that, but I can make that happen. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Complete, using the example you provided. Thanks Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " the expansion only sold as many as 2.7 million units worldwide" - "as many as" sounds weird to me here, since it's usually used in a positive way but it's used negatively here. Maybe "up to 2.7" or "a maximum of 2.7" or "at most 2.7" instead?
- Done - It actually sold 2.7 million by the end of 1994, so I've rephrased it as such and with a neutral tone. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "were a number of FMV games" - should be Full Motion Video (FMV) games the first time you use it, or perhaps just use and link Interactive movie instead.
- Done - Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links to compact disc|audio CDs and central processing unit in the lead are redirecting.
- Done - Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A bunch of game titles/developers are redirecting; while some seem intentional, others don't (like Bari-arm) so check them.
Curious, but not surprising. Is there a bot that can do this upon request? I can weed it all out if need be, but I would think there'd be an automated bot that could make such corrections. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I went through and did the games manually. Developers would take some time. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 17:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This script might help you out for this, colour codes them. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should've figured that in some way, Anomie would inadvertently help me out again on another Sega article. Thanks, Lightlowemon. I'm sure that'll be a very helpful too, especially when I move on to List of Sega Genesis games. Over 900 titles there... yikes. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - Thanks, that made correcting those redirects surprisingly easy. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you get any more details on reference 2, like ISSN or author?
- Most I've really got is that it's a staff article and that it's in German; I'll see if I can throw some of that in. In terms of evaluating it for reliability, Man!ac is a past labeling of M! Games, an active video game publication in Germany. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider archiving your references via web.archive.org or webcitation.org- while the sites themselves are unlikely to disappear completely, there's nothing stopping them from changing information and messing up the article- GameSpot reformatted all their video game pages/links just last month without leaving behind redirects or keeping all the information, and there's nothing stopping IGN/1UP.com from doing the same.
- Thanks, I'll consider it. I know Sega's changed their sites around a little bit, so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility they might. I'll probably work on this last, though, just so I can focus on the important ones to this FAC first, and then do the archiving.
- Looks good, switching to support. Minor redirects and unarchived refs aren't criteria that would block my support. One follow-up point though- now that it's just "2.7 million units as of the end of 1994", the "While" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't make much sense- you're not contrasting that it was known for a couple games with the amount it sold, you're just presenting two facts. --PresN 19:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll weigh in on this during this weekend.--SexyKick 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the first reviewer that the lead probably discusses the console itself at length a bit more than I'd like. Why do I need to know that Sega of Japan didn't share with Sega of America during the development?
- Removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see a total game count anywhere. Ideally I'd like a total count for all three regions as well as the world.
- Personally I disagree with individual regions as being excessive, but I don't see anything wrong with a WP:CALC addition of a total number of releases. I'll see if I can slip that in. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The 32 colors comment isn't marked to be incorrect like in the Sega CD article.
- Removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a * could be placed next to games that also came out on the Sega Genesis? I'm not sure on this one.
- Might be excessive in my opinion; this is, after all, a list of Sega CD titles, and even the Genesis "ports" had differences from their counterparts. We don't list console releases on one system that also were released on a specific other (note: yes, I'm aware the Sega CD is an add-on and not a stand-alone console). Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference review since there aren't a ton of these, I went through their formatting and found it to be consistent. I've read through the entirety of most of them, and skimmed the one or two I hadn't read. I find all referenced information accurately cross checks. Very good.--SexyKick 10:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, SexyKick. Appreciate your feedback, as always. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- SupportYou're very welcome, and I somewhat agree with the other things potentially being excessive. They were just the things I felt interested in that weren't there. Since the 32X ports of Sega CD games were noted, I thought it might be nice if I could know which got improvements. I really like the improvements in 3 Ninjas, and Ecco the Dolphin, but they blow me away in Batman Returns. So I like seeking out the titles that were on both, but I do see the potential excessiveness.--SexyKick 05:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one slight difference between this and 32X, and that's that the 32X ports required the Sega CD as well and weren't just ports outright. So, in essence, those listed there were 32X and CD games combined into one. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments (please note that I am not reviewing in my capacity as delegate)
- Why is Sega CD bolded? Last I checked, that was deprecated for lists
- Because I'm apparently quite behind the times. It has been removed. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking: Japan, North America, etc.
- Rectified. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 05:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise quite solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2014 (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 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]
List of international cricket centuries by David Boon
This list is based upon pre-existing lists of the similar type and I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Comments and suggestion are appreciated! Zia Khan 14:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 03:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)
—Vensatry (Ping me) 10:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments (re-visit)
|
- The only issue I can see is this: "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to him [.....] and described him that he......" - his accomplishments with the bat didn't describe him as anything, also in English we don't "describe that" something. I would re-write the sentence to "His accomplishments with the bat during the 1993 English cricket season led to Wisden naming him as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1994 and describing him as "the most assured batsman in the Australian team"". Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - you missed out a word when you put my suggested revised sentence in, but I fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 12 December 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 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]
Mack 10 discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a good amount of work into it and I believe it meets the FL criteria. I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while because of college so if there are any problems I will fix them as soon as possible...So just bare with me! THANK YOU!!!!! CrowzRSA 04:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Soooo no one wants to comment on this easy discography???? Why is this not in the urgently needing review section... CrowzRSA 20:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quick review, as you asked so nicely.
- Lead is too long.
- How is the lead too long? It summarizes the article and doesn't go overboard with anything. The guys released 8 studio albums, and everyone of them charted on the Billboard 200. For example, the Slipknot discography page is smaller in size yet it has a longer lead, which is necessary to summarize the article. CrowzRSA 16:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out WP:LEAD and tell me how this bypasses the guidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mix number formats in a single sentence for items which are comparable.
- " West Coast rapper Mack 10" three wikilinks butted up together is potentially confusing.
- "was awarded Gold" you mean "certified".
- Which territory is each release date pertinent to?
- Where are releases which didn't chart anywhere such as "Do tha Damn Thing" referenced?
- All refs need to comply with WP:DASH.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, couple of raw URLs in the refs need to be fixed. Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. All issues were addressed and i seriously think it meets each criteria. So if there are any more issues—major or minor—please comment. CrowzRSA 17:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate comment: This candidate has been archived. There may be a delay between the closing of this nomination and the bot running through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2014 (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 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]
List of National Football League retired numbers
- Nominator(s): Darylgolden(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC), 71.126.8.99[reply]
I am nominating this on behalf of 71.126.8.99 for featured list because he recently added citations and added pictures, and now thinks that it is worthy of being a featured list. Darylgolden(talk) 00:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Rejectwater
Major problems (the below comments will refer to the Featured List criteria):
- The lead is far too short and what is there is not very good. Please see WP:LEAD. Currently fails criteria #1 and #2.
- I believe it is safe to presume comprehensiveness at this time, however as it includes listings of "none" for teams with no retired numbers, I would call this a failure of criteria #3 due to the table contents going outside the scope of the page.
- Has no section headings, no table of contents, and table sorting functions do not work as they should. Fails criteria #4.
- At the very least it does not comply with WP:LEAD nor WP:ACCESS and therefore fails criteria #5.
- Fails criteria 5(a), visual appeal, due mainly to failing most of the other criteria.
- Fails criteria 5(b) due to images having poor captions and no alt texts.
- Passes criteria #6.
Potential solutions and other more specific problems:
- The lead has to be completely re-written with a length equal to the scope of the topic. I would think the lead of a page like this one would be about 3 paragraphs.
- Get rid of the "none" listings. This isn't List of National Football teams that have no retired numbers.
- Done.
- Team names need to be displayed in full per WP:NOPIPE. The way it is done now also breaks sorting functionality.
- Done.
- Fixed headings.
- There should be at least one section heading separating the lead from the list.
- Done.
- Player name should sort by last name. Use the {{sortname}} template for this.
- Done.
- Get rid of conference column. Irrelevant. The row header should be uber important, either the player's name or number.
- Done.
- Also, the row header should be sorted alphabetically by the player's last name on initial page view (ie, the code should be arranged this way). Right now the default sort is "no particular order, but grouped by club." Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's based on team then number. I think that it's fine.
- Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Organization: "Although lists may be organized in different ways, they must always be organized. The most basic form of organization is alphabetical or numerical (such as List of Star Wars starfighters), though if items have specific dates a chronological format is sometimes preferable (List of Belarusian Prime Ministers)." I don't believe that the current structure of the list meets this standard. Rejectwater (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Posthumous: I don't know what to say about this. Also seems irrelevant. Not in the About.com source.
- Removed.
- Is About.com considered a reliable source?
- About.com is not a reliable source. Also, the citation claims the page is published by the NFL, which is absurd. Rejectwater (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Image captions are boring. See WP:CAPTIONS.
- Spruced things up a bit.
- Not a single image has an alt text. See WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples.
- Done.
- There is no image in the lead.
- Do not use contractions such as "don't".
- Done.
- References should follow the punctuation mark, not come before.
- Done.
- "are considered" - see WP:AWT. Considered by whom?
- Done.
- Citations are so poorly formatted I don't even know where to begin. See WP:CITE and Template:Cite web for starters. Several dead links in there as well. Rejectwater (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference column should not be sortable. Rejectwater (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
Oppose
- Lead is too short.
- Citations need correct and consistent format.
- WP:DASH needs to be adhered to.
- Why is San Diego Chargers retired numbers specified as a see also?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 22 December 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]
List of DS:Style products
Well, I'm finally nearing the end of getting all of WP:SE's lists to featured status- though of course, that means we're down to the even-more-obscure ones. Here we have what should be the bottom of that- the DS:Style line of educational software products for the Nintendo DS, which started out in 2007 with fascinating topics like gardening and yoga, and ended after 22 releases in 2011 with study guides for the Japanese real estate exam. Riveting stuff. The main point of notability for these Japan-only products is that they represented an attempt by Square Enix, a massive video game developer/publisher, to expand their product lines to include the non-traditional-gaming public. Turns out there's only so much you can do with that when producing software for a video game console. Anyways, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsThese lists really are getting to obscurity aren't they? Good luck on the last two Dragon Quest lists. Not sure what your position is on red links, but I'd consider linking LEC certification test, Japan Legal Mind, and even Tipness. They may not get articles any time soon, but a red link isn't necessary a bad link. Due to there being no parent article, a third paragraph in the lead with a bit of overviewing reception of the series from the reference links might give the article a bit of a boost. Also, just a heads up that all the Gamespot links are broken I believe. This is (as you noted) a very obscure list, especially as it doesn't have any English release and it's content is pretty much only concerning the originating language, good luck on the nomination. --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed the broken links and added some redlinks. --PresN 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, mind if I ask for your feedback about a potential third paragraph? --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added one, but there weren't really reviews for them- they're really just software products, and as such after the first blip were largely ignored- they're the kind of thing you pick up in passing in the store, not the kind of thing you read big reviews of on websites, regardless of country. --PresN 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured, but pretty much what you put up was what I was looking for, just a couple of sentences given that this list has no main article. I see nothing else wrong with this now. --Lightlowemon (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added one, but there weren't really reviews for them- they're really just software products, and as such after the first blip were largely ignored- they're the kind of thing you pick up in passing in the store, not the kind of thing you read big reviews of on websites, regardless of country. --PresN 04:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, mind if I ask for your feedback about a potential third paragraph? --Lightlowemon (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the broken links and added some redlinks. --PresN 18:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Everything seems to be in order. Well-references, well-written, and seemingly complete. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...:
- Make sure tables comply with MOS:DTT and utilize column and row scopes. If you're not a proponent of the bold row headers, you can use "wikitable plainrowheaders", but I'd suggest using row and column scopes anyway.
- I'm very worried about the use of GameSpot as a reference for the items in the tables. Per WP:VG/S, GameSpot's database is NOT considered a reliable source. It is shared with GameFAQs, which is entirely user-contributed without editorial oversight, and GameSpot mirrors it in a rather deceptive fashion. Can you find another source for the games?
Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 03:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I can't believe I forgot about that. Ugh. Of course you were going to call me out on that; you did on my last video game FLC as well. We're in luck; IGN covered most of the games, and the Square Enix sites for the others had the release dates (which they don't always). No Gamespot refs remaining, col/row scopes added. --PresN 04:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with one more comment. Well done. I promise, I'm not trying to pick on you for that; GameSpot just happens to be rather deceptive because it doesn't look like it's a user-contributed database, yet it is. About the most that GameSpot can be used for are for staff-contributed opinions and statements, as long as they're verified staff members of GameSpot. Now, I'm already willing to support this list, but given the red links in the lead, can anything be said about some of the items linked to help understand the subject? For example, I'd understand the sentence about a study guide for LEC certification tests if we had such an article, but we do not, so can something be said about what an LEC certification test is for right after that? I didn't withhold my support because it's of little relevance to the subject itself, but it would help readers to understand what they're reading and what we're talking about when we don't have an article for something. Thanks, Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 13:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out LEC is actually a strange acronym for Legal Mind, K.K. (i.e. Inc.). Probably makes more sense in Japanese. Changed the text from the Japanese LEC certification tests to "Japanese professional licensing and civil servant exams". --PresN 18:49, 28 November 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 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]
List of Carolina Panthers head coaches
This is a list featuring all of the head coaches of the Carolina Panthers. It is a bit on the short side, primarily because the team has only had four coaches since joining the NFL in 1995, but is comparable to other featured lists on the topic. I didn't have to do much on the article aside from cleanup and lede expansion, and with those out of the way I think this meets the FL criteria. Toa Nidhiki05 02:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Rejectwater
Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Great list, well formatted, all my concerns addressed. I believe it meets the criteria. Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't this list be included into the main article Carolina Panthers? I don't see a reason why there needs to be a stand-alone list, considering that the list only has 4 entries (WP:WIAFL 3b). --K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume this is a list of internal consistency, because every team has a list. Moving the tables to the main article, a featured article, would make it very out of place, as would transferring all the info because on the main article, there is only a short paragraph on coaching along with ownership and executive officers... adding all the info here would make that section excessively focus on coaches. Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Every NFL team has a list of coaches per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Rejectwater (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can easily be merged into the parent article. Summary style is irrelevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per TRM furthermore the list has only four entries so doesn't fulfill 3(b) criteria. Zia Khan 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw this entry due to trending consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 15:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been failed, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:14, 11 January 2014 (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 SchroCat 15:19, 20 January 2014 [15].
List of Detroit Red Wings award winners
- Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, well, what do we have here but yet another Detroit Red Wings Featured List nomination. What is with these guys? This time around we have List of Detroit Red Wings award winners, easily the longest of the bunch and arguably the most impressive (in terms of what the team has accomplished). The team and it's players have taken home 158 awards so far; if a Red Wing hasn't won it, it probably isn't an active NHL award. The list has undergone peer review where all concerns were addressed. save for one regarding a tagging issue with one of the images. I am unconvinced that is a critical issue, but if others feel it is we can address it somehow. Also, I currently have an open FL nomination for List of Detroit Red Wings general managers, however I believe that given the status of that nomination I am within the standard that "[u]sers should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." As always I look forward to reading, addressing, and responding to your comments. Regards, and thank you for your time. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, having already been through it at the Peer Review. However, a note about File:Red Wings retired Banners.jpg, I did leave a note at Commons about it at commons:Commons:Village_pump#File:Red_Wings_retired_Banners.jpg, but didn't get a response. :( — Cirt (talk) 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support, and also for trying to get something done with that image. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're most welcome, I only wish there was more of a response to help with it, — Cirt (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My two cents is, if you have the time, give it another look. It's a fairly long list and if there is one thing I know about reviewing articles, it's that there is always something that can be improved upon. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The article is well cited, comprehensive, and laid out fine. All the images have alt text (even if some of them are a little short, like Ted Lindsay). Good article, deserves a star. Anthony (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your kind words and support. The alts were all recently updated per my understanding of WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. The Ted Lindsay image you mentioned is just a picture of Ted Lindsay, and so that is all the alt text says. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not a lot left for me to complain about. I have only some small nitpicks, none of which would prevent me from casting my support now. Solid format and structure to the article, and incorporates some ideas that I really should go back and update List of Calgary Flames award winners with.
- "...and are one of the Original Six teams of the league." - This reads as if it is meant to be taken literally, as in the Red Wings were one of the NHL's first six franchises. Easily fixed by putting "Original Six" in quotes, thus changing the implication.
- The Red Wings are in an odd situation where, if they should reach the Stanley Cup Finals from the Eastern Conference, could have won the Wales Trophy for three different reasons. I think it would be useful to add and end note explaining that the Wales Trophy was first a divisional championship trophy, then a regular season championship, and now dedicated to the Eastern Conference championship. Especially since we know someone will come along and "fix" this. Also as a suggestion - and only if you (and others) think it a good idea: the Wales Trophy section could be split into two rows, the first showing when they won the American Division, and the second had the most points.
- Question: Do the Red Wings hand out team awards, similar to those awarded by the Flames? Near as I can tell from their media guide, they don't, but I would like to make sure as you are obviously an expert on the team! Resolute 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Calgary list - it's funny you say that because it was that page and List of New York Islanders award winners that served as the inspiration for this page.
- Original Six - fair enough. Done.
- Wales footnote - I have thought about the note explaining that also and will add it in soon. I don't think the idea of splitting the award into two rows is a good idea; the footnote should explain things sufficiently.
- Team awards - no, I am not aware of anything like that. As you say, there is no mention of any such awards in the team media guide. For a publication that includes the team's all time record in games played on Halloween, I trust that not being in that guide means there aren't any.
- Thank you for your kind words, input, support, and for taking the time. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Crisco 1492
Their most recent team trophy was the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl in 2009, taken in honor of being the champions of the Western Conference. - You just mentioned they are part of the Eastern conference. How can they be champions of the Western Conference?their uniform number retired - what's a good link for this? Retired number, maybe?The section #Individual awards could do with standardising how you write numbers (numerals or words)The second paragraph of #All-Star Game selections needs at least one citationJack Adams Player 1959 none - What's this supposed to mean, no years playing with the team? If he was a manager for the team, then you should give a footnote clarifying how he was involved with the Red Wings. Other people in a similar situation as well.The Red Wings have also made the number 6 of Larry Aurie and the number 16 of Vladimir Konstantinov no longer available for issue, however those numbers are not considered to be officially retired - so why are they not available?- Look for duplicate links between sections, like Gordie Howe, First and Second Team All-Stars, Stanley Cup, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- West vs. East; have added footnote that explains this.
- Retired number - added wikilink
- How numbers are written - I believe I have standardized the entire page in this regard. Numbers are written out using words in prose sections and in numerals in tables. There is one exception: the retired numbers section. In that section uniform numbers are displayed as numerals which is the way they are used and displayed (ie, Steve Yzerman wore 19, not nineteen). More to follow. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All-Star Game selections citations - done.
- Hall of Fame/none - added footnotes for individuals in question. Rejectwater (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added explanations for Aurie and Konstantinov.
- Duplicate links - the page is currently set up as one link per term per prose section with unlimited links in the sortable tables. You are saying there should be no more than one link per term for the entire article? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Last one: Only in prose sections outside the lede. Tables should be fully wikilinked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)
- Descriptions should be unsortable
- Is it possible for you to add (#) beside the names to denote how many times the player has won the same award?
- Why fix the widths of the tables? The tables will appear just as good without the fixed widths :D
--K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Descriptions, unsortable - I disagree. Is there a policy at play here or is this your preference?
- Making the Description column sortable does not add value to the table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting rid of the function certainly doesn't add value. I take it then, that this is your preference. Having no knowledge of any pertinent policy that would apply here my preference is to leave it as it is. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is no policy that states that descriptions must be unsortable, and this may be a personal preference; however, the descriptions are not data, and this may only be my opinion, but I just find sorting non-data to be redundant. I also don't recollect any other tables that sort their descriptions except for the two in this article. It would be nice if there was a third-party to comment on this matter. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- add (#) beside the names - yes, it is possible. I am unsure of the value of this and fear it would clutter the table(s).
- It won't clutter the tables, seeing that they are all wide enough. The reason why I had them on the featured lists have I have contributed to is because I, and assuming that others do as well, would like to know how many times each player has won said award. It gives readers a sense of how successful each player was during his time with the Red Wings.
- What I am thinking for this is two additional columns. One for times won by individual and one for aggregrate team wins. This would allow sorting. Readers could see which award has been won the most by individuals, won the most by the team overall, etc. Let me know what you think. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good plan to me! I can't visualize what you are describing, but I think it would be informative. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed width - featured list criteria 5a, visual appeal. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The huge empty areas are visually unappealing. I can see that you want the table all the same width, but just look at all that extra unneeded space in the Number of selections column for NHL First and Second Team All-Stars! The Team trophies table looks squished, so a fixed width is unnecessary for that specific table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfixing the width of the tables doesn't get rid of any unused area. The tables simply stretch to fill all available space. Fixing the width limits the size of the table, it doesn't expand it. I have fixed the team trophy table to be the same size as the others. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it depends on the table. If we remove all the fixed width settings, some tables would stretch to fill the whole screen while others would be tiny. The unused space you are concerned with would be empty whitespace on the page rather than empty space in the table cells. Huge, huge chunks of empty whitespace in many sections. Of course, that also depends on the screen resolution and size of the window the browser is being viewed in, which cannot be controlled for... except by fixing the width as a percentage. Rejectwater (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Team trophies" table now looks out of place with the resolution that I have (1366px width). I suggest that that table alone be left unfixed so that it is visually appealing for common resolutions (~1280px and up), unless there is a better solution. Also, why is this particular table unsortable? I was assuming that it was because the table is short enough for the sorting function to not be needed, but then I saw the table for "Other awards", and that one is sortable. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the "Number of selections" column that I mentioned, how about shorten the column title to "Selections" and fix the width to 1%? I think that will resolve the gigantic empty space in that column, and will make the table look more even. Try that out and let me know what you think. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments (well, ignorant questions mainly)
- Lead says "awards and honors" but the title is simply "award winners", should this be moved to "award and honor winners"?
- "captured the Stanley Cup as league champion" is there another way to win the Stanley Cup other than to be league champion?
- Not any more, but the Cup predates the NHL, it was originally a challenge trophy and for a time it was a championship trophy for the winner of a series between PCHA/WCHL/WHL and NHA/NHL. It was possible to be NHL champions and not win the Stanley Cup. While both of those eras predate the Wings it is part of the Cup's history.
- " team's most decorated player" should that be "individual player" or is he both?
- Not sure I understand.
- " leads goaltenders with three wins of the Vezina Trophy as the league's best goaltender" repetitive use of goaltender.
- Looking at the lead it appears that it is broken down by position so I'm not sure how to re-word in the current format and use the official description of the trophy. I thought about changing the first instance to netminders of goalies but I'm not sure how encyclopedic either one is.
- "uniform retired", I imagine we have a suitable link for this in the lead.
- Linked
- "1954–55" etc wrap onto two lines for me, suggest use of the {{nowrap}} template to prevent this from occurring.
- Added nowrap all of the dates on the team awards table.
- Also, for non-experts, is there a link to "regular season"?
- Linked
- Lindstrom is missing his diacritic. So is Borje.
- There is a compromise at WP:Ice Hockey that diacritic are used on all bios and pages for leagues where that are commonly used. But not used on pages based on leagues that do not use them (most North American based pages). I added pipe links to avoid redirects.
- Sorting on Description, since it's free text, is a little pointless.
- Removed sorting ability
- I would have thought Plus–minus should be separated by an en-dash, not a hyphen.
- These are how the pages are named. I'm not sure what the proper format would be.
- In Safari, "Number of selections" column is far wider than any other, yet it contains only two digits at most.
- Shortened to Selections, which reduces the column size a bit, but I'm not sure how to make it smaller.
- If "Babe Siebert Memorial Game" is so notable, why no article?
- No one has made a page for it yet. Being it's from 1939 the sources are more difficult to find (majority offline) and its less likley to be worked on due to age.
- " with the Lester Patrick Trophy. The Lester Patrick Trophy" poor prose alert.
- Changed second mention to The trophy as to not repeat back to back.
- Image captions which are not complete sentences should not have a full stop.
- Removed.
- Would imagine you could try 3 columns in the refs since so many point at the book and a single page ref.
- Changed to 3 columns
- Ensure retrieval dates are all formatted the same.
- I think that they are all now the same
- Similar applies to publication dates.
- Same as the access dates, though I may have missed one.
Will do a proper review when I get time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Randomly came across the FLC and I noticed that there was no activity from the nominator. The above list seemed pretty straight forward and I didn't want all of their hard work to go to waste or the comments not to at least be addressed, so I figured I'd address them quickly. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [16].[reply]
40th Daytime Emmy Awards
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with promoted Featured lists in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 12:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support: The list looks really good. Well done.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 15 December 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [17].[reply]
List of municipalities in Alberta
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities within the Province of Alberta (Canada) completed to the same standard as the recently FLC promoted equivalents for other Canadian provinces, namely List of municipalities in Manitoba and List of municipalities in Ontario. Hwy43 (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dudley Miles |
---|
This is an excellent list. On a quick look, I have a few minor quibbles.
|
I'm sorry to always be that guy, but, as you know, this list is extremely duplicative of List of communities in Alberta, and again with Specialized municipalities of Alberta, List of municipal districts in Alberta, List of cities in Alberta, List of towns in Alberta, List of summer villages in Alberta, and List of census agglomerations in Alberta. Yes, those include a little bit more info and some former municipalities, but I don't see why the same datasets should be copied three times. I was a bit confused by seeing identical information in different places, and duplication and redundancy can pose the problem of the pages falling out of sync when changes are made, so I would encourage a simple merge. The communities list appears to already have everything that's in this list, plus the unincorporated settlements. Reywas92Talk 14:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See this recent deletion proposal that resulted in a speedy keep. You are correct there is duplication. However, what you may not have yet seen is that all the data in the tables at the main articles is transcluded to the List of communities in Alberta article, so thus far there is no duplication with risk of pages falling out of sync when changes are made. For this list article, the specialized municipality and Metis settlement table data are both transcluded from their main articles as well. The intent was to implement complex customized transclusion to do the same from the main articles for the urban and rural municipalities as well, but I haven't mastered that yet. I do intend to investigate this further as redundancy has been a concern that I've voiced previously.[18][19] In the meantime, as you've also noticed, the main articles do contain more information for each municipal type (more columns, additional sections, lists of former municipalities, etc.), which would bog down this summary list article of all varying municipality types and require splitting back to the current state. Hwy43 (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had this criticism as well for a prior nomination. Especially with articles like list of towns, villages, districts etc that you mention I'm still on the fence. I have sympathy for list of census agglomerations (which are very different) and list of communities which is like a catch all. What convinced me was WP:NOTPAPER. As long as each page adds *something* that is not found in this list then why not? I believe the list of municipalities is probably the best and most useful page out of the lot you mention, as municipalities are actual governing entities with borders and tax payers and elected officials. Something like census divisions are just for statistical purposes, and communities is a mishmash, so I'm glad this is the one that is being nominated, for what it's worth.Mattximus (talk) 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mattximus |
---|
Comments from Mattximus (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Layout is much better with the merged maps. Excellent list. Mattximus (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A very good list. I have not tried to make my comments resolved as one of them led on to comments by other editors. By the way, is there a template for making comments resolved? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. Nice piece of work: I couldn't spot any issues with it and I happily support it. - SchroCat (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been promoted. There may be a slight delay while the bot processes the nomination. Congratulations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Older nominations
- 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 Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]
Arsenal F.C. league record by opponent
- Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating this again after no 'consensus' was reached at the first time of asking. A complete list of Arsenal's record against every team they have played in the league, which wasn't the case when I nominated this months ago. All feedback is welcome, thanks. Lemonade51 (talk) 21:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused. There is already a totals row. Unless you mean something else? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he means at the very bottom of the article there should be a totals column for Arsenals overall record throughout their history. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether that is a necessary requirement. It'll be easy to accumulate the Premier League total, but very time-consuming for the other leagues Arsenal have played. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Anyway, other than what Eddie said I can not find anything wrong with this list. It has everything someone doing research would expect and more. Easily earns my support. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether that is a necessary requirement. It'll be easy to accumulate the Premier League total, but very time-consuming for the other leagues Arsenal have played. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe he means at the very bottom of the article there should be a totals column for Arsenals overall record throughout their history. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused. There is already a totals row. Unless you mean something else? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Introduction
Key
Table
Hope that helps. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- In regards to the season articles, and the fact that some of the years relate to different leagues (united league, football league etc) it night be worth adding some sort of note and symbol to show that the first match against a club was in either the united league or southern district combination league.
- Adding symbols would mean adding a colour scheme and in the case of West Ham, it would have been conflicting as they are Arsenal's divisional opponents, who they first met in the London League. So left notes clubs Arsenal first played in the United League, the Southern District Combination, the London League Premier Division (ie: discontinued leagues). Lemonade51 (talk) 21:32, 27 November 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC) [21].[reply]
List of light cruisers of Germany
Another in my series of German warship types, this comprises the light cruisers built from the 1890s to the 1940s. This is the capstone for this topic. It passed a MILHIST ACR last month. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- To what use did the Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine put Hamburg and Berlin? Barracks ships or similar?
- Explain Dresden's fate.
- Link beach and grounded.
- Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
On first glance I find nothing wrong with the list, although list is a bit of an understatement. However, I found some minor points that should be addressed:
- The first sentence - though accurate - seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Maybe we could drop the reference to the different historical periods as they are reflected in the names of the navies mentioned?
- Sounds fine to me.
- The second chapter is titled World War II-era, but covers mostly the inter-war period. Maybe it should be called Post-World War I-era or something alike.
- In the paragraph on Emden (1925) the phrase "by the reformed Reichsmarine" is used. As someone else pointed out, it should be re-formed, as it is rather questionable that the Reichsmarine saw the errors of its ways and repented.
- Good catch.
- In the paragraph on the Leipzig-class, Gotenhafen is mentioned. Maybe it could be extended by the present-day name, Gdynia, Poland. And a time reference would be in order.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good list. A few minor comments.
- "foreign stations" - I think this should be defined.
- "five members of the succeeding Königsberg and Leipzig classes" - presumably members means ships but it sounds a bit odd to me.
- It's a pretty routine way to refer to the ships in a class.
- "A further six ships of the M class were planned in the late 1930s, but the outbreak of war forced their cancellation." Why would war force their cancellation rather than making proceeding with them a higher priority? (I see this is explained below but I think a revised wording would be helpful).
- Because once war breaks out, the most pressing needs get priority of construction (in this case, U-boats). Again, I think spelling this out is too much detail in the lead.
- Brummer class. "And to further aid them in their offensive minelaying role, they were designed to resemble British cruisers." Why did resembling British cruisers help them - for disguise?
Dudley Miles (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - if you spot a ship in the foggy, squally North Sea that looks like a British ship, you won't open fire immediately, which gives the German ships a bit longer to escape. Added "to help conceal their identity." - does that clear it up any? Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support typically excellent work. Would only have one wish, that the tables were all formatted the same, but it may be a screen width issue that shrinks the Karlsruhe section and Cöln section compared to the others. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, TRM. I've checked the tables on my desktop, laptop and smart phone and they all looked fine on those screens, but I guess that wasn't enough ;) I added {{clear}} templates after the images so that should keep them from pushing the tables over. Parsecboy (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see the article is written in AmEng, but is it normal to have a non-US date format used as well? - SchroCat (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Germany uses day-month-year format so that's what I went with. Parsecboy (talk) 10:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2014 (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 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [22].[reply]
Deportation of Armenian notables on 24 April 1915
- Nominator(s): Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is an extensive and very informative article about a part of world history few know. The article is prolifically sourced and is truly remarkably done. Nothing is left unsourced. It didn't pass GA only because it was recommended to FL. Looking forward for the review. Proudbolsahye (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: I think that the red links that are used for most of the names on the table should be removed, per point 5a in the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. --1ST7 (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just realized that this page wasn't watchlisted. I will get to removing the red links ASAP. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED: Okay red links are now removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Maybe the Armenian script under the names on the list should be removed as well; it might help the list to look cleaner and enhance visual appeal. Also, I found an image of ten of the Armenian intellectuals who were killed during the deportations; I thought that it would make a better picture for the lead and moved the one that was previously in the lead down a little to another section in the article. I hope that's alright with you. --1ST7 (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED: Okay red links are now removed. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: Thanks for the wonderful addition to the article. I just sent the photograph to the graphics lab since I figured it needs a lot of improvement. As for the Armenian scripture, it's hard for me to say whether we should remove it since these intellectuals were strictly Armenian reading, writing, and speaking people. I also personally believe that it is good for research purposes. Their names are prevalent throughout many Armenian written sources and novels. But then again, this is just my opinion. Nevertheless, I am fine with removing it if there's consensus against it. I say we wait for additional opinions on that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion: Genocide Remembrance Day is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article. I think a section needs to be added on that subject, per WP:LEAD. You can include information on when the day was first established, who it is commemorated by (I believe April 15 is also designated to commemorate the Assyrian Genocide), and how it is commemorated. You could also use one of these images. --1ST7 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: That's a valid consideration. When I have time this weekend, I'll add a little bit about Armenian Genocide remembrance day. Much of that information is already found on other articles...I can incorporate them from there. Proudbolsahye (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: I added the section but it needs a nice CE. If you can help me out with a CE that'll be great. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to help, but I can't do it at the moment. If you can wait until tomorrow, I should be able to then. --1ST7 (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, done. --1ST7 (talk) 03:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a review here? Proudbolsahye (talk) 18:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another suggestion: Genocide Remembrance Day is mentioned in the lead but not in the rest of the article. I think a section needs to be added on that subject, per WP:LEAD. You can include information on when the day was first established, who it is commemorated by (I believe April 15 is also designated to commemorate the Assyrian Genocide), and how it is commemorated. You could also use one of these images. --1ST7 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @1ST7: Thanks for the wonderful addition to the article. I just sent the photograph to the graphics lab since I figured it needs a lot of improvement. As for the Armenian scripture, it's hard for me to say whether we should remove it since these intellectuals were strictly Armenian reading, writing, and speaking people. I also personally believe that it is good for research purposes. Their names are prevalent throughout many Armenian written sources and novels. But then again, this is just my opinion. Nevertheless, I am fine with removing it if there's consensus against it. I say we wait for additional opinions on that matter. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I'm finding the prose in the body to be really choppy and oddly worded, and the flow of the text as a whole is disjointed- you don't adhere very strongly to a narrative timeline, and it reads like a scattering of facts whose primary purpose is to shame the perpetrators rather than inform the reader. A few examples of problems I found listed below.- "May 1915, they were later relocated, within the Empire" - second comma unnecessary - DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most who commemorate the Armenian Genocide believe that 24 April 1915 is the date" - "consider 24 April 1915 to be the date" sounds better to my ears - Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "holiday in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" - "the" before Nagorno Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Detention section, it should probably be combined into fewer, longer paragraphs- they're a bit short. DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "At Constantinople, the action was operated" - "In Constantinople, the action was led" DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The third paragraph of Detention is really choppy, and should be re-flowed Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The train was under way with 220 Armenians" - tense change, sounds like a copyvio. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "band of brigands" - sensational language; they were a state-sponsored paramilitary group DoneProudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Marzbed was dispatched to Kayseri" - who's Marzbed? Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole Court martial section seems out of place- you're talking about all the prisoners arriving at the prisons, then suddenly you're calling out the assassination of a couple of them and the court martial of another, with their longer-term consequences, before jumping back to the release of several others.
- Three different top-level sections in a row with 1-2 short paragraphs each is really wonky. It would be a lot better to split the whole thing into deportation/detention and aftermath. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table could use some sorting ability. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual work should be in italics in ref 3, and it needs more information overall, and given that you translate all the other Armenian in the refs you should translate this. Done (Removed Ref) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 40 and 50 need more detail, and 50 needs to drop the all-caps Done (They are now refs 39 and 49 respectively) Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes need capitals at the beginning of each one and a period at the end. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--PresN 01:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I'm fine with the work done above. Remaining issues:
- You have the names in the table alphabetical by last name, but they sort by first name when you sort the column. See the {{sortname}} template, or just the {{sort}} template. Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few rows in the table have no source for any of their columns: Vartabed Garabed Mkrtichian, Hagop Tekeyan, Dz. Vartabed Yervant Perdahjian, and Bedros Kahanay Garabedian. Done (I removed them since they're unsourced) Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- --PresN 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see prior issues were addressed with due diligence, above. I find the page to be most meticulously sourced with appropriate references, and with the extra notes quite educational and informative for the reader. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since I'm an Armenian user, I would like to avoid supporting the nomination. Instead, I want to make several minor edits that will improve the article a bit. --Երևանցի talk 21:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I partly improved the referencing format. It's still a little confusing and I'll try to work on it later, too. I also added an infobox.
- I wanna do is add a simple map that will show the key locations (Constantinople, Ayaş, Çankırı, Diyarbakır, etc) of the deportations on the 1914 Ottoman Empire map. --Երևանցի talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Proudbolsahye, do you think a map is necessary? --Երևանցի talk 23:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good with me Yerevantsi. Also, have you been able to assess the issues PresN presented above? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, the sorting thing will take some time to complete, but I can definitely do it. I don't know about the unsourced individuals.--Երևանցի talk 20:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with the sorting. --Երևանցի talk 02:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Map added. --Երևանցի talk 04:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, I fixed all the aforementioned issues. Thanks Yerevantsi for your diligent effort for bringing about the wonderful sort-ability. The map looks nice too. Now people will know where those cities are without actually clicking on the Wikilinks to find out. I just removed the "Date of Deportation" column since it was unnecessary. 99% of the deportees were deported on the same day (24 April 1915). I clarified the exceptions in the Notes column. @PresN: Let me know if any other changes are needed. Thanks for all the wonderful support. Proudbolsahye (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good with me Yerevantsi. Also, have you been able to assess the issues PresN presented above? Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm Since this is a sensitive subject, I strongly encourage to change all the instances of Constantinople to Istanbul - the common usage in the current English. Nergaal (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Nergaal: I believe there is already a consensus instated among Wikipedians that when referring to Istanbul prior to the formal adoption of the name on March 28, 1930, we must use Constantinople. Let me know whether my response helped the concern you've raised. Nevertheless, I am willing to change it. I just want the consensus to be considered when it comes to the name since it certainly has been a contentious issue in the Wikipedia community. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't realized that the change was so late. Perhaps mention "currently Istanbul" after the first usage? Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC) Done Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think that the current title does a disservice to the article. "Notables" is not a common usage in current English, and I think you were referring to "Notable people".
- The intro does very little to discuss the content of the table. How many people were deported? Were all the people in the table deported on April 24?
- Who is not included in the table?
- Perhaps change the title to "List of notable Armenians deported on 24 April 1915"?
Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nergaal: Thanks for raising these questions. In response to the concerns you have raised:
- The article states 2,345 Armenians were detained. All of whom were deported. I have just provided extra clarification for this and an extra ref for additional verification.
- My recent edit here removed the category of the deportation date. It was taking up too much space but more importantly, it was very repetitive. Almost all, with the exception of 5 deportees, were deported on the same day. The article uses 24 April 1915 as the base date for the deportations. I have provided additional clarifications for the 5 exceptions in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. See: Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is limited to the deportees as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources. The article already states this, "Below is a list of prominent Armenian intellectuals, community leaders and other public figures that were deported from Constantinople on 24 April 1915, as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources"
- I am willing to change the name of the article. The article itself has gone through a lot of name changes. The talk page of the article highlights some of these changes and the reasons behind them. "List of notable Armenians deported in April 1915" doesn't sound like a bad idea, however, I believe the specific date of 24 April 1915 should be added since the date itself is very important to the commemoration of the event itself. I also might want to suggest to carry this topic of discussion to the talk page, so as to not go back and forth in the nomination page. If we agree on a name change, we can come back with a definitive solution here. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I would like a little more background. What were the notables accused of? Campaigning for Armenian independence? Working to overthrow the Sultanate?
- I assume that this was the first phase of the genocide which eventually murdered over 1 million. If so, this should be stated.
- How is a notable defined? The article says 2435 were deported, which seems a high number.
- "The 24th of April has become Genocide Remembrance Day". The date is not generally observed by non-Armenians. I think it would be clearer if you shifted the last clause in the paragraph to make "The 24th of April is observed by the Armenian diaspora around the world as Genocide Remembrance Day".
- "first commemorated in 1919 as in observance of its four-year anniversary in Constantinople". This seems ungrammatical and unclear. Commemorated in Istanbul or by Armenians elsewhere of events in Istanbul? (I see this is explained below. Perhaps leave out "as in observance of its four-year anniversary").
- Why mention those with Russian citizenship? If they were treated differently from the others this should be explained.
- "Most of the arrested were sent after identification of the particulars from Central Prison". "after identification of the particulars" is superfluous. I would leave it out.
- "right away tried in vain". "right away" is a bit colloquial. I would prefer "immediately".
- "Roughly 150 political prisoners were detained in Ayaş, and another 150 intellectual prisoners were detained in Çankırı." Were the prisoners separated into politicals and intellectuals?
- "Mazhar Bey defied the secret instructions of Talat Pasha, the Interior Minister." What secret instructions?
Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delegate comments
- Oppose owing to titling and selection concerns.
- Why is the title "notables"? What criteria is used in determining that?
- Armenia - why is this linked so late?
- This list does not include 2,455 people (so it is not a full list), nor does it contain only blue links (thus it is not a list of all of them who have Wikipedia articles). What exactly is the selection criteria for this list? If many of the names are not known or recorded (in which case "notables" would be a vast overstatement), this should be noted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although Proudbolsahye is the nominator and it would be better if he addresses these issues, I'd like to respond to Crisco's comments. 1) You are right about the use of "notables". I very much doubt all these people were notable, even within the Armenian community of Constantinople. I know up to 20 people from the list, with 5 of them being very famous and recognizable by most Armenians. I think "intellectuals" would be a good replacement. 2) The modern Republic of Armenia (which is only a small part of the pre-genocide Armenia) had no direct relation to this event. Constantinople had more Armenians than any other city in the world at that time, but it is still outside Armenia. It's somewhat comparable to Kristallnacht and Israel. 3) The list is of all known people "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources". --Երևանցի talk 04:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "as made available by the Ottoman Archives and Armenian sources" does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources. This needs to be explicit. Otherwise the list could be understood as the writer being uninitiated and not wanting to do archive diving (for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources" well who claims it does? This list was created based on major works dealing with the deportation. Those sources are Teotig, Grigoris Balakian and others. I think it might be a good idea to clearly indicate the sources somewhere in the article? --Երևանցի talk 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is not indicating the sources, it is indicating why 2,000+ individuals are represented by 20 (over half of whom are not Wikipedia notable). That's not a comprehensive list. Period. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of Armenians deported on April 24 1915. I amended the sentence that presents the list to further emphasize this point and to clarify any sort of misunderstanding. Indeed, the April 24 deportations are considered the first wave of deportations while the 2,345 figure is the total amount of all deportees which eventually took place from April 24 and thereon. I had to remove the category of "Date deported" column here because it was overly redundant and it took up too much space. There are however a few notable exceptions which have been specified in the Notes column of the corresponding deportees (i.e. Krikor Zohrab). Proudbolsahye (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If 24 people were deported on the first day, why is that information not in the lede? I mean, this is basic writing. And the issue with "notables" has still not been addressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just requested a move to "Deportation of Armenian intellectuals on 24 April 1915". See more here. --Երևանցի talk 16:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have also amended the lead to better suit the list as suggested by other users here at the nomination page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "does not automatically indicate that there are no more sources" well who claims it does? This list was created based on major works dealing with the deportation. Those sources are Teotig, Grigoris Balakian and others. I think it might be a good idea to clearly indicate the sources somewhere in the article? --Երևանցի talk 01:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question In the lead it says "most were killed" (without a citation) but in the list, 78 are listed as being killed out of 235 to 270. Unless you mean most of the total number? If so that is not clear, and a citation should be provided. Mattximus (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2014 (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 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [23].[reply]
Family Guy (season 4)
I am nominating this for featured article because by the peer review that was made a few months ago, and the only problems that were found was the dead references and the British - American language, which was easily fixed by me. Also, by it's information, it does meet the FL criteria, and should be promoted. Blurred Lines 14:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,suggest WP:Featured list instead. That's what Family Guy (season 5) and Family Guy (season 8) are classified as, and it seems more appropriate for season articles. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Done Blurred Lines 18:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Maralia A few notes after a quick look:
- The article talk page is templated with a note about several broken section links that date back to 2010; can you check whether those still need fixing?
- Done I have just checked those links, they seem to be fine, so I have removed the template from the talk page. Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly in the reference section (but also elsewhere), I see quite a few wikilinks inside quotations, which MOS says to avoid. Most of them are elementary-school-level vocabulary words (God, sex, sacred, profane, condom, racism) so there's really no need to link them anyway. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple of italicized redlinks in the reference section that seem malformed: they don't point to likely article titles. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sales of the DVD set reached 2.2 million copies,[6] becoming the best-selling television DVD of 2003" - grammatically, this says sales became the best-selling television DVD. This could be fixed with "The DVD set sold 2.2 million copies, making it the best-selling..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fox president Gail Berman said that it was one of her most difficult decisions to cancel the show, and was therefore happy it would return" - garbled; perhaps "Berman said canceling the show was one of her most difficult decisions, and she was therefore..." Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fewer critics responded negatively to the season; Seattle Post-Intelligencer critic Melanie McFarland reacted very negative" - negative is an adjective; you need an adverb here, and preferably a different one to avoid redundancy with the first half of the sentence. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see other grammar issues in the episode summaries, but don't have the time for a full review at the moment; will try to make it back to the article. Agree that FL is probably the proper venue. Done Blurred Lines 19:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Maralia (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dtngo (talk) Great article! I believe that this page is written excellently. It also has the standard format of a television and is easy to navigate. However, some of the citations in the reference list can be updated with online references:
- For the 4th citation, the Gordon article can be found online here: [24]
- For the 26th citation, the Golden Reel nominations and recipients can be found in an archived page here: [25]
- For the 27th citation, the McGuire article can be found online here: [26]
I hope this helps. Dtngo (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please focus on the content, not the contributor.
|
---|
|
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2014 (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 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]
List of Cricket World Cup centuries
I've modeled this list based upon List of centuries in women's Test cricket. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- "Date" should sort as "No."
- Remove the superfluous second and third sets of "headings", which poorly affect the sortability. Harrias talk 12:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Players from teams that have permanent ODI status.." Should be "Players from all the teams that have permanent ODI status.."
- How do you know that Amiss' century was scored before Turner's? The matches were played on the same day, and as far as I can figure were probably played concurrently. Amiss scored slightly quicker than Turner, but I can't see any compelling evidence that he reached his century first? Unless you have more information than is being presented?
- Interesting question, but Amiss was the first man to score a century in WC. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would put in a placeholder flag for East Africa, so that the text aligns with the rest: {{noflag|[[East Africa cricket team|East Africa]]}} should achieve it.
- "It remained the highest individual total over the next two editions when Indian cricketer Kapil Dev scored 175 not out against Zimbabwe in 1983." Should be "..until Indian.." not "..when Indian.."
- Expand Ganguly's name on first use.
- I think more explanation needs to be given of the relevance of Flower's century, at the moment it looks a little out of place. Is he the only player to score a century on ODI debut during a World Cup?
- Link not out and balls in the key. I know they both appear in the lead, but I link a bit of duplication is fine, given some people will skip straight to the list.
- Century #69 needs a space between the comma and the town/city name.
- Century #114 doesn't give the town/city name. Harrias talk 08:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Zia Khan 22:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Further comments –
It has only 45 entries and the table we are dealing with is almost thrice the length. When we navigate through the list the top header goes out of picture on the screen. Sure 8-10 headers may be helpful for table with 1000 entries. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Çomments
|
- Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:41, 1 December 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]
List of Welsh Premier League clubs
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Loosely modelled on existing FL List of former Football League clubs (except that it in this case it features every club to have played in the league), I feel this meets all the requirements.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Zia Khan 10:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from GRAPPLE X 16:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 December 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 SchroCat 20:22, 27 December 2013 [29].
List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. —FRANKY! 13:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Rejectwater
Additional Comments from Rejectwater
|
Quick question - Why do you refer to her as Vidya rather than Balan (compare List of awards and nominations received by Aishwarya Rai where she is referred to as Rai, List of awards and nominations received by Preity Zinta where she is referred to as Zinta etc...)? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because "Balan" is the name of her father and not a family name and I see a majority of sources calling her "Vidya" rather than "Balan" (Here are some examples [30] [31] [32]). Please also
seeread the first line of lead section of the actor's biography. —FRANKY! 00:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are inconsistencies in the repeated sentence "She has won XXX awards from XXX nominations." When I count the nominations and awards, they do not seem to match the tables. Is there an explanation for how the sentences are counting awards and nominations, or are the sentences wrong?
- The awards table were according to 2013 but the sentences and infobox were according to 2012.
The award counts are also different in the Infobox. Now I'm thoroughly confused.
- Done.
I think the Infobox award list should be in the same order as the article's list of awards, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There can be placed only 14 awards list in the award template but if we give the specific name of the award which're saved in the template (like Academy, Filmfare, IIFA etc) there can be more than 14. As you know the section of awards are more than 14, it won't be possible.
Comment: I have completed a copy edit of this article under the auspices of the Guild of Copy Editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick oppose
- Link Pradeep Sarkar in the lead
- Done.
- Avoid starting paras with pronouns
- Done.
- The following sentence is too lengthy and unclear.
- Done.
- Guru is only a semi-biographical film.
- Done.
- Majority of the lead talks only about the Filmfare Awards, as if she won only that award.
- Done.
- " As of July 2013, Vidya has won 53 awards out of 78 nominations.[2]" fails WP:V.
- Done.
- A majority of the award descriptions are one-just liners.
- Done.
- Refs. are either cluttered or poorly formatted.
- Done.
- Despite most of the tables having the same no. of columns their width is not uniform
- Done.
- You could add a separate column for references in the table and add them instead of placing them in the prose.
- Done.
- The urls of refs. #7, #26 and #45 are relocated to somewhere.
- Done.
- Multiple references are using the same name (awards)
Quick comments
- "Reference" should at least be "Reference(s)".
- Done.
- Table column widths differ from section to section making the whole list look really messy.
- Done.
- Last sentence of first paragraph.... count the words.... too long.
I failed to do that, The Rambling Man, but I'd very much appreciate it if you could help me with your expertise in this area.
- Done.
- In the "National Film Awards" part of the info box, how can an award have been won without a nomination?
- Because "National Film Awards" do
esnot have any nominations, they do have consideration but are not declared publicly.
- Because "National Film Awards" do
- Why are five refs needed for one award?
- Done.
- Why is India suddenly wiki-linked midway through?
- Well, I asked the article to be copyedited so in response to that the user, Jonesey95 wiki-linked that.
- "Best Actress - Drama" etc, check for WP:DASH.
- Done.
- Is it "Best Thriller/Action Actress" or "Best Actress - Action/Thriller"? Be consistent. Check the others.
- Done.
- Check reference titles for WP:DASH.
- Done.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that infobox image is more closely cropped. (logged-out) User:Indopug 122.172.11.178 (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been not reached a consensus for promotion, but there may be a delay in processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 6 January 2014 (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 10:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC) [33].[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Prince Royce
- 'Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and Magiciandude (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after several months of working on this list in the Sandbox, with Erick, we feel that is meets the criteria. The list follows the format of the featured articles List of awards and nominations received by Ivy Queen and List of awards and nominations received by Romeo Santos. DivaKnockouts 23:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref comments
- Link latimes
- Link ASCAP to American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
- There is an uneeded space before ref [11] in the article. ("...award from one nomination. [11]")
Done Erick (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "both which he won" should be "both of which he won"
- In the last line of the lead, Tropical Song of the Year has a stray " at the start
- "Royce has received fifty-eight awards from 105 nominations" - either both should be in words or both should be in digits, not a mix of both
- I don't really like "Royce has not won an award from one nomination" under MTV Video Music Awards. Maybe "Royce has received one nomination but not won an award"........?
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done all, I fixed the last issue by changing to "has received one nomination" to be consisted with the American Music Awards. Erick (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third point isn't fixed. Also, why is "Tropical Song of the Year" in quote marks? None of the other award categories mentioned in the lead are shown like that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 15 December 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]
List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted
This one was progressing alright the first time around but then I had to go and disappear for a while (aliens). I think I've caught up to everything that had been mentioned the last time around, plus any relevant material from the intervening time has been added (along with a nice shiny picture). I promise I won't get abducted a second time around. GRAPPLE X 02:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - My comments were all addressed the first time around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there not a template for the artist at the bottom? CrowzRSA 22:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - everything else looks good to me. CrowzRSA 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from Lightlowemon
He played bass guitar with the group between 1987 and 2001. Any chance this sentence could be merged with the one before or after? It sounds like a fragment.- In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. I count six in the table.
- I guess that does look a bit off. There are three actual songs which he has credits for ("Blackened", "My Friend of Misery" and "Where the Wild Things Are"), but there's also a bass solo from a live album listed there, which is his own work (I don't own it but I'm 99% sure it's actually the bass intro to "My Friend of Misery"), another live bass solo which might or might not be the same work, and a medley of songs ("Justice Medley") which includes parts from "Blackened" (here's a breakdown of the parts). I'm at a loss for how to succinctly explain that only three studio-recorded songs featured original work credited to him though. :( GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing I can think of is to adda note to those three songs and put it in a notes section at the bottom. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, Newsted faced difficulty integrating with the group, and found little opportunity to add his music input. In his time with the band, Newsted was given writing credit for only three Metallica songs. to add his music input? The sentence sounds a little off, since this seems to be a cause and effect thing (as in the sentences are directly related), maybe merge these sentences somehow?
- Still not a fan of the term music input maybe musical influence? Other then that looks good. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newsted wrote and recorded three albums with the band: Voivod, Katorz and Infini. You just mentioned three different bands in the sentence before, so you need to specify which one you are talking about (even if it is obvious due to the album titles. Also you mention these three albums and yet I only see one listed in the table, why is this?
- My mistake, had it sorted by album name at the time. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do find it a little strange that you have 13 artists yet only mention 9 in the lead, missing The Moss Brothers, Unkle, IR8 and Sexoturica and Sepultura- I couldn't find anything about his involvement with Moss Brothers beyond the raw credits in order to say anything about it, and I wasn't sure a one-song cameo for Sepultura was worth much of a mention. I could see about digging up some of the other stuff, though the IR8 and Sexoturica stuff is just one split demo that appears to have been a pair of self-released vanity projects. GRAPPLE X 20:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a point that would stop me supporting, just seems a little odd is all, especially since you've mentioned bands his done less work with. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Several songs and a few writers are redirects, you don't have to do anything with these just pointing them out:
- Songs - ...And Justice for All (both occurrences), Battery (both), Blackened, Die, Die My Darling (listed with an extra comma after the second Die), Sad But True (all versions; in regards to the above comment, it should be spelt however it appears on the album), To Live Is to Die, The Unforgiven II (links to section) and Welcome Home (Sanitarium)
Writers - Chris Exall, Clive Blake
- Die, Die My Darling and Sad But/but True still need to be fixed (the extra comma and casing). I agree there's no harm in keeping them, just thought I'd let you know. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is Papa Wheelie not linked in the navbox?Echobrain is used as a reference name twice in the article.The AllRovi site seems to be down, any idea if this is permanent?
- Looks good overall. --Lightlowemon (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About to start working through these now, but about the last one—apparently AllRovi has once again split into the two sites that merged to form it in the first place (AllMovie and AllMusic, where "Rovi" comes from is a mystery). Looks like the content still exists but just elsewhere. I'm going to poke around and see if it's an easy fix or if I need to replace all the URLs manually. GRAPPLE X 19:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the comments that had been addressed and left comments. Once the reference and the remaining small issues are fixed I'll be happy to support. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added in an extra line in the lead which should mean all acts are now covered, and have fixed the unnecessary redirects. I also managed to get the URLs fixed in the refs for AllMusic; as I had hoped it turned out to be a simple change that could be applied en masse to everything. GRAPPLE X 00:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My deepest apologies I thought I replied, due to the names implying they aren't lyrical tracks and are just audio, I'm happy to support this list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 05:50, 20 December 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 SchroCat 10:08, 16 December 2013 [35].
List of Fairy Tail manga volumes
- Nominator(s): Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because we need more FLCs on chapter lists and I have been working on this for months now, but had to leave for a two-month long Wikibreak back in August. I believe this chapter list meets the FLC criteria. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by DragonZero
- Ref names should not be in all caps
- Refs should list the site's publisher? You have random house refs under Del Ray as the publisher.
- You should reword the international release part. Is there a reliable source that says Fairy Tail is only published in those regions? Otherwise, it should be something like "released in regions such as..."
- You can link the publishing companies in the lead, at least for star comics.
- "40 tankōbonvolumes" needs space. Add nbsp; between the number and the unit
- I find the third paragraph confusing overall.
- The sources in the paragraph don't seem to back anything up there.
- Later noted, some references contradict the release dates.
I'll take a closer look at the sources one by one later. Also, is it that easy to get FL for chapter lists? I'd be submitting them in hoards if it is. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the really late reply, but I am trying to help update the article as well by adding news about digital releases. I'll see what I can do about the rest. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one fix I think needs to be done. "The chapters are being collected in tankōbon format since December 15, 2006." - "Are being" is that really proper grammar? It just strikes me as really off. Rewording the whole sentence might be the only way around it though. Otherwise it looks good from a few spot checks, but I am totally new to this process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The references do not support the release dates. Until such a time that they do this shouldn't be a featured list. --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now. Some of the dates don't match the sourcing. Should be addressed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weren't those the sources you were referring too? --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I forgot I mentioned that already. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weren't those the sources you were referring too? --Lightlowemon (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now. Some of the dates don't match the sourcing. Should be addressed. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sorry, SJones, but I'm not really comfortable with this list. It's a summary of three other lists (List of Fairy Tail manga volumes (1–15), et al.), and adds no new information beyond what they have. Maybe if it was actually those three lists put together, with the chapter summaries, replacing the three, but if it's just going to be shortened forms of the same tables I don't see the purpose of the list. --PresN 00:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose it's nothing but a summary, and adds nothing to the other lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 11 December 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [36].[reply]
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (C)
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this a 2nd time for featured list because I still believe it meets the criteria. The first time around it was not promoted because the review timeframe expired and nobody seemed to have shown sufficient interest in the topic. Thanks to anyone willing to comment this time around. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsNot supported Support by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the rank or date citations for several recipients are not cited for the date given in the table, only for Scherzer's alternative date, please check all the ones with a Note. The fact that this isn't seen in the Role and unit column indicates it may have been intentional, but I feel it is necessary for completeness. Examples include:
- Botho von La Chevallerie
- Dietrich von Choltitz
No changes made: It is a procedural question. I had built this list with the information from the AKCR/Fellgiebel. I cited this information in the Role and rank column only, one cite per row. In the second pass, I verified this with the information from Scherzer. Here I chose to cite every item of the table. This helps me keep an overview. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree. I don't think a "one citation per line" approach is the answer to this query. Either all information on each recipient is clearly sourced, or it is not. My view (as described) is that it is not in its current form. I cannot support this nomination with that approach to sourcing, in my view a sortable tabularised list such as this is effectively incomplete without greater clarity of sourcing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that the lead doesn't state that some of the data varies between the two sources, predominantly ranks and dates of award. A list of names is one thing, variances in data relating to the award between the two sources is another as far as I am concerned. Regardless, the additional citations from Fellgiebel resolve my issue, supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "These recipients are listed in the 1986 edition of Walther-Peer Fellgiebel's book". Thanks for finding the other two citations. done MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see where in the lead it says that "the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work". It states that the list (the assumption is the list of recipients) is drawn from Fellgiebel, but the point there is about the inclusion of a name on the list, not the details of the award itself in terms of rank or date of award. The addition of further citations from Fellgiebel is a significant improvement, but for example, Richard Czekay's rank of Hauptmann still needs to be cited, as does Erwin Clausen's date of award. When they are done I'll be happy to support. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated in my previous comment. I have implemented your suggestion! Have a look. The article lead already states that the list is based on Fellgiebel's book and deviations are derived from Scherzer's work. I don’t think that adding even more citations to this table helps clarity in any way. It would only impede load times. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider the citation approach used is not adequate in its current form, regardless of the status of the other articles that might use it. The result of the citation approach you have used is that the source of some of the data (Fellgiebel) is not evident. I have changed my precipitate opposition to a tentative one, but I firmly believe this must be addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The citation style, citing every bit of info, follows the principles established during the reviews of List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients (A), List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1940–1941), 1942, 1943, 1944 and 1945. All of which are featured lists today. Even if your comment warrants addressing, which I have, I feel that a final review comment "Not Supported", without first engaging in an open discussion, is not best practice. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there anything I can do to attract more reviewers? Help MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll pop by in the next couple of days - ping me on Tues if I've forgotten by then. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support much like the other lists, this has evolved and improved over time to be a good example of what to nominate at FLC, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nice piece of work: happy to support on this. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 4 December 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC) [37].[reply]
List of chief ministers from Bharatiya Janata Party
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As somebody who's spent a lot of time on chief-minister articles, I've come across a number of difficulties which has prevented me from nominating any (except the relatively simple List of current Indian chief ministers) at FLC. I see a number of those problems here:
- the primary one is sourcing. WorldStatesmen.org seems to be a crowdsourced project, and I thus doubt it can be considered as a reliable source. You'll have go to individual state-govts' websites and hunt for CM-related info. In several cases these don't even exist.
- What makes photius.com an RS? Done
- The Term (tenure length) column seems to be inspired by this. However that article was simpler in the sense that whoever was longest-serving was also the earliest occupant. In this BJP article, there's no way to use the sort function to rank by tenure lengths. There's also no mention of total length of tenures. Done
- You don't need to use ref [4] in the lead. It is backed up by the table. Done
- That map is extremely strange. It goes from lighter to darker shade of the same colour--giving the impression that a darker state has had more CMs than a lighter one. For eg.
- IMO don't make any special indication for "regional party supported by the BJP". This article is about BJP's CMs, not BJP govts. Plus it's never really clear who is supporting who in Indian politics, so you'd need a source to back these claims.
- On the whole: reconsider the purpose of the map. As a national party, obviously it will have a presence in nearly the whole country. Maybe just listing the four incumbent states is enough? Or maybe colour-code the states by no of CMs?
- See below
- "(First time)" and so on don't really serve any purpose. The tenures are clear without them. Done—indopug (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have opened a thread here about the source. I will fix all other issues once it gets clear whether the source is reliable or not. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is complete in itself with reliable sources. This article should be in Featured list.--Prateek MalviyaTalk 03:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Dharmadhyaksha
- How is this format?
State | Name | Portrait | Terms | Total tenure length (days) | Tenure description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Uttar Pradesh | Kalyan Singh | – | 3 | 1311 | 24 June 1991 – 6 December 1992 (First time) (531) 21 September 1997 – 21 February 1998 (Second time) (153) 23 February 1998 – 12 November 1999 (Third time) (627) |
In here the total terms and total duration in days are separated and both are sortable. Last column acts like description of the previous two without sorting. Feel free to rename the headers. This might be confusing.
- Instead of using §, use a symbol which is easily searchable by Ctrl+F or at least § which is not in template. Also, we normally use symbols along with colours so for readers with visual impediment the symbol serves the purpose for distinction. But there's no reason to strain visually able readers to search for such tiny symbol. Use a shade of orange to highlight such entries.
- About map i agree with Indopug. Why not make two maps; one for incumbent CMs and one with number of CM? If you wish, a map with largest tenure can also be made. (Its so easy to preach!) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't indicated the no. of CMs in the map because it will be misleading. The BJP has only one CM in Chhattisgarh since 2003, but had 3 CMs in Karnataka in just one term. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm! Thats a good point. Didn’t realize that before. I am happy with this current map. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But something is going wrong here. We are writing that Raman Singh has served 1 term. When actually they were 2 term, both consecutive. That point of he getting elected twice and becoming CM consecutively is missed out. Same with Modi, Chouhan and probably others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no source to get the number of terms. So I have replaced the title heading with Tenure(s), as consecutive terms are counted as one tenure. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to politics i suppose terms are more important. Party winning and nominating same person for the post is crucial which we are missing out here. If there are sources for dates of tenure, i don’t see what source is unavailable? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:19, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source counts consecutive terms as one tenure, and no information is provided about the terms or the elections. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) |
---|
Comments
|
- Question: Have sourcing concerns been addressed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my response to Vensatry's comment. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 27 November 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.
Nominations for removal
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating
- Notified: Parutakupiu
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
- Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
- None of the tables are accessible
- No alt text on any of the images
Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination.Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to allow time for improvements to be made, so striking my vote to delist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, I have begun work on this article today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleased to see the progress being made! I'm more than willing to be patient if an effort is being made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]