←Created page with '{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of East Anglia alumni/archive1}}' |
archive 3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches/archive3}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Star Trek/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/80th Academy Awards/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of East Anglia alumni/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of University of East Anglia alumni/archive1}} |
Revision as of 11:04, 6 December 2014
- 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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [1].
List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches
- Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third time's the charm? The Navy Midshipmen football team is probably the most unique American college football team there is. During their 120-something year history, thirty-seven men have coached the team. They've had one interim coach (the unspeakable 2001 season), and twice went without a coach. Four of those men are in the College Football Hall of Fame for their coaching, and a few more probably should be. I have previously nominated this list twice. The first nomination ended after several good comments, but only a couple of votes, while the second was never even commented on. All previous concerns that had been raised have been addressed. Comments are appreciated (although votes are preferred). Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment –
In footnote 1, the score range requires an en dash per MoS;otherwise, I don't see too much wrong with this list. Hopefully it will attract more reviewers. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty lame mistake on my part. It's correct now. Thanks for the review. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 05:28, 13 November 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- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.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:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [2].
List of accolades received by Star Trek (film)
It's been a while since I've put forward a FL nom, and certainly this one is unlike any I've ever done - because the sourcing was an absolute pig!! But after digging through archive.org I've managed to put together a fully sourced list. This was originally based off the IMDB list of the awards, but in pulling this together I fixed the mistakes in that table (you'll notice that IMDB gives the film more victories - but I've gone through and checked each individual one to make sure they're all accounted for). Once this gets through then I'll take a long hard look at Star Trek Into Darkness although I'll need a drink first! :) Miyagawa (talk) 11:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
====Comments by Cowlibob====
Lead
Infobox
Table
References
Probably more to follow... Cowlibob (talk) 12:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- All good now. I can now Support this list. Cowlibob (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd disambiguate with (film), as we could theoretically make a list for TOS and/or the franchise as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Excellent, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SNUGGUMS
- Oppose..... at least for now:
- I can't find anything in FN5 (Box Office Mojo) which supports the "which placed it as the seventh highest-grossing film for 2009 behind The Hangover" bit
- Within the tables, there are instances of WP:OVERLINK for award recipients
- Publisher for The Boston Globe from 2006 to October 2009 was P. Steven Ainsley, so I'd reflect this accordingly
- Box Office Mojo shouldn't be italicized as it is an online-only source
- FN6's publisher should be the same as FN5, which is Amazon.com
- CBS News shouldn't be italicized as it is not a print source, and publisher is CBS Corporation
- "Daily News" should read "New York Daily News"
- I am confident that better sources can be found than "Zap2It" or "Daily Express".
- I'd argue that both are reliable sources. In particular, the Daily Express is a national British newspaper. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not too sure about "Moviefone"
- It's a website owned by AOL and directly linked to from their websites. Miyagawa (talk) 04:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is how AOL-affiliated sites tend not to be very reliable Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other source I can find is a TrekMovie.com article as the SFX website doesn't have the results listed anymore, and archive.org unfortunately didn't capture it while it did. I'm happy to use TrekMovie.com as it's one of only the four fan related websites which are linked to from the official Star Trek website, which I've always taken a sign of reliability. However, it's probably the one I've used the least as the others actually used to have articles directly linked to from the official website in a prior design. But I'm happy to either switch or add as a secondary cite if you think it'd improve the situation. Miyagawa (talk) 01:57, 5 December 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:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:05, 6 December 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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:04, 6 December 2014 [3].
80th Academy Awards
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2008 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 17:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've not checked the "Ceremony information" section, but I have checked the awards, presenters and performers table against their sources. Below is my feedback. The article seems very thorough and, following a similar format to other successful lists, it seems that it covers all the main areas. You seem to have been the only contributor since at least July (with one exception) and so it appears stable to me.
- In the introduction, you might want to mention roughly how many people watched the ceremony. Otherwise, the introduction is fine and, being based closely on the others, I see no faults with it.
- The second paragraph in the introduction ends with "The telecast garnered almost 32 million viewers, making it the least watched Oscar broadcast in history."
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The viewing figures, director and producer should probably be sourced in the infobox, as they are in the 2007 page.
- Fixed: Used extra copy of link in ratings and reception and used it in infobox
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have left the double daggers beside the winners, despite stating that the winners would be in bold face.
- Fixed: Changed sentence to read "Winners are listed first and indicated with a double-dagger".
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources lists "Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird" for Ratatouille in the Best Original Screenplay award. You only list Brad Bird.
- Fixed: Added Capobianco and Pikava. Also credited them as either story and/or screenplay.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Best Foreign Language film section in the source does not list the directors and hence those statements are not sourced in the article.
- According Academy rules (click here) it states: "The Academy statuette (Oscar) will be awarded to the motion picture and accepted by the director on behalf of the picture’s creative talents. For Academy Awards purposes the country will be credited as the nominee. The directors name will be listed on the statuette plaque after country and film title (Rule 13, Part IV, Section B)" In other words, the award itself is credited toward the country of origin AND the director of the film.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine - I am not questioning that at all - it is correct to add the directors names. I am also not saying that the information is wrong. However, I am commenting on the fact that the Oscars source itself doesn't actually give the directors - it only gives the countries - and so the article doesn't include references which support the directors' names. If the article were taken on its own, one couldn't verify the names of the directors. Now, it might just be me being pedantic, and other's might disagree with me - I am just making an observation. --Noswall59 (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
- The translation of film names is inconsistent. For instance, you write "Even Pigeons Go To Heaven (Même les pigeons vont au paradis)" in Best Short Animation, yet in Best Live Action Short, you give The Substitute without its original Italian name; the same is true for The Mozart of Pickpockets.
- In the Best Song category, you don't differentiate between those who wrote the music and those who wrote the lyrics; the article on the 80th awards does make this distinction. An example would be “Happy Working Song” from Enchanted: the source states "Music by Alan Menken; Lyric by Stephen Schwartz".
- Fixed: Added Music and Lyric credentials.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 22:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the source you give for the presenters and performers lists. Firstly, it doesn't actually state which award they presented or what they performed. Secondly, Tom Kane, Randy Thomas, John Stewart, Barry B. Benson and Sid Ganis all appear in your list but not in the source. Furthermore, the source states that Queen Latifa was a presenter, but she is not included in your list. Finally, the performers list also capitalises Impact in "IMPACT Repertory Theatre of Harlem" and does not mention Bill Conti, who appears in your list.
Thanks and good luck with your nomination, --Noswall59 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Support: Great work once again.--Jagarin 02:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Comments –
In the Coens' picture, shouldn't "winner" be plural in this case?- Presenters: Keri Russell's note needs "of" after the first word.
Ceremony information: An en dash is needed in the year range of 2007-08 Writers Guild of America strike.Don't think the second word of "Oscar Night" should be capitalized.Critical reviews: Is "What" or another word missing from the beginning of the "We got instead" quote?In "that numerous film montage seemed to diminish Stewart's job as host", "montage" should be made plural."but praised Stewart writing". "Stewart" → "Stewart's".First word of the Brian Lowry quote is a typo.All caps in ref 38 should be removed.Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Birdienest81, it would be good if you could deal with these. I'm liable to archive within the next three days otherwise. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed most of the problems. I'll get an update really REALLY sooon.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, what do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The second issue is still outstanding, but all the others are fixed and I misread one of the items in question anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cowlibob
Fixed point 2 above. Other minor things to fix.
- For the critical reception section, make language more neutral e.g. not bemoaned, complained, marvelled.
- Ratings section: 31.76 million + 21% decrease year on year figures not supported by ref (32 million in ref). Source for 31.76 (http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/02/01/opinion.medved/) Source for 21% fall (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/26/entertainment/et-oscarratings26). 64.19 million cumulative figure not supported by ref. (ref 51 works to support this add in-line cite here.).
@Birdienest81: When you make these fixes, which shouldn't take long, I'd be happy to support. Cowlibob (talk) 11:54, 3 December 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:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 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 archived by SchroCat 23:23, 1 December 2014 [4].
List of University of East Anglia alumni
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a full and thorough list which is fully referenced and I believe it meets (or is on the cusp of meeting) the criteria to become a featured list. Uhooep (talk) 08:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Rodw
I never knew UEA had such an illustrious list of alumni. A few comments:
Lead
- Would it be worth saying which country it is in as you mention "foreign nations" later.
- It might also be saying how long UEA has existed (ie cince 1963) to give some context
List
- You use lots of abbreviations in the "Class year" column. I am familiar with BA, MA, BSc, PGCE, PhD but others might not be so a key to these abbreviations or suitable wikilink might help. ARE as a class is beyond me.
- In "sport" you wikilink England for the rugby team but in some sections there are others (eg BBC, Sky Sports) which could be wikilinked but are not - I don't quite understand the rationale.
You have "&" in a couple of the sub head titles. I thought the MOS encouraged writing "and" in full
Layout
- On my screen the Notability column is very wide (wider than the text) but the name and Class year columns quite narrow which means that they take up more than one line in some cases.
- Some sections have lots of photos others (eg Arts Administrators) don't have any
References
- It is good that there is a reference per line however many of them (eg 27, 28, 29, 30 etc etc) are "bare URLs" it would be better to include the title, name, date accessed etc in each.
- Ref 18 appears to be a web citation but has no URL.
Ref 27 (mathiascorman) gives a 404 errorRef 36 (ethiopianwomen) gives a 404- Ref 165 (netcomunity) gives a file type error - but I'm not sure why
- The CAPITALISATION of who's who entries makes them stand out from the other entries.
Hope these comments are helpful.— Rod talk 15:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more thoughts:
I note your user page just consists of a link to Tamara Ingram. If you (User:Uhooep) are Tamara Ingram you should be aware of the potential Conflict of interest in editing a page on which you appear.I'm not Tamara Ingram, I just created a red link on by userpage prior to creating a stub about her.- It also appears you are quite a new editor and have only edited this list in the last couple of weeks. I was wondering whether you had discussed the nomination with other editors of the article in line with the featured list candidate instructions, which say "Ones who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination."?
Perhaps you could clarify.— Rod talk 15:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uhooep, these comments have been unanswered, and undealt with, for a month. If you do not address them in the next 24 hours, I'll presume the nomination has been withdrawn. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 30 November 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:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 23:31, 1 December 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.