Razr Nation (talk | contribs) add 43 |
Razr Nation (talk | contribs) null edit: add 4, not 43 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of coastal defense ships of Germany/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of coastal defense ships of Germany/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Lonely Island discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Lonely Island discography/archive1}} |
Revision as of 19:09, 7 August 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of coastal defense ships of Germany
Another in my series of lists of German warships, this is a list of the coastal defense ships built by Imperial Germany during the 1880s-90s. This list caps this Good Topic. It has just passed a MILHIST A-class review, and I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this list represents Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance all who take the time to review it. Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Well written with good citations and references. Well done! I would just add alt text for the image at the top. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 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, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
The Lonely Island discography
I am nominating this for featured list because after having redeveloped its prose section and tables, I believe that it now may satisfy the featured list criteria. Holiday56 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
;Comments:
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - This is a great list. I'd link troupe though, if it can be, as I don't know what this is. — AARON • TALK 21:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Troupe" is more or less a synonym for "group"; it's a commonly used term when referring to groups of comedians. I suppose I could link it, but that may be considered a violation of WP:OVERLINK. I'll wait for more opinions for now; if more people feel that linking to the term would be appropriate, then I can do so. Thanks for the support! Holiday56 (talk) 08:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Can't see any glaring issues, although you could take out the "25-song extension" bit in the notes, as the length of the Bubbling Under Hot 100 has varied over the years. (Some Swedish certifications for "I Just Had Sex" and "Jack Sparrow" that you might want to have a look at, as well.) Good job! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 09:04, 3 August 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, 9 August 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
List of municipalities in Ontario
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in British Columbia and List of cities and towns in California. Thanks. Mattximus (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, why have the links been removed from all of the images? 117Avenue (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the alt is for "situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment). I believe it is primarily for blind users. So you are not supposed to see the alt. "The alt parameter text is not normally visible to readers but may be displayed by web browsers when images are switched off". So I think it's good as is. Mattximus (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hadn't previously seen or used the link parameter before. Yesterday's efforts were trial and error efforts to figure it out. Just moved a link parameter outright. Upon click, you go to the file's page, which is what I'm accustomed to. Returning the link parameter but leaving it blank prevents clicking altogether. In both scenarios however, I'm failing to see the alt parameter generate as a hot tip on the image. I suggest we remove all link parameters. No point in linking the image to an article if a wikilink in the caption does the same. Simply redundant. Still don't know how to get the alt to appear though. Hwy43 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a little pair of boxes just to the lower right of each image which takes you to the file pages. Is that what you were looking for? Mattximus (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking on the images resulted in nothing, normally it would take you to the file page. User:Hwy43 has since linked them to the city articles. Is there a featured article guideline, that I am unaware of, which recommends links to file pages be removed? 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links seem to be working, can you be more specific? Mattximus (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All |
---|
;Comments:
– Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Underneath-it-All (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First set of resolved comments from Nergaal |
---|
;Comments
Nergaal (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] Nergaal, have all your comments since been sufficiently addressed? Not sure if your last comment above refers to all your items or just the last item. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment
- Not sure if I am too close to this, but IMO single and lower-tier municipalities should be split into separate sections. Each of the three types of municipal status should have its own section. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like those two combined, as they both serve largely the same function (as opposed to upper-tier municipalities which are rather distinct and deserve their own list). Dividing the single and lower-tier municipalities will also make it impossible to sort municipalities by population (and population growth, and area, and density...), one of the purposes of having sortable columns and listing all types of municipalities in the first place. Mattximus (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you can combine all and use color-codes to differentiate among the three. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how correct these the lower tier map is, could someone perhaps correct my confusion? Something seems wrong with the "Southern Ontario's 11 single-tier municipalities" map. It does not show many single tiered municipalities, for example London, Ontario or Orillia, but does show a northern ontario single tiered municipality Greater Sudbury. Unfortunately, at this scale I don't believe the color-codes would work for the lower tier as there are far too many municipalities to display. I believe this map should be removed. However, the upper tier maps could be merged into a two colour system as they are easily visible at this resolution. Would you recommend that Nergaal? Mattximus (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you can combine all and use color-codes to differentiate among the three. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand you correctly, Upper tier municipalities are divided into lower tier, while single-tier ones are both upper and lower tier at the same time. In that case, I would merge the upper and single tier ones together, and create a map for them only. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite, but that's my fault for not being clear here or in the article. Upper tier are special in that they have lower tiered municipalities inside them, so they function rather differently than lower tier (having less municipal duties). Some are not found within an upper tier municipality, and they are called single tier, and function almost exactly like lower tier. So it makes sense to merge the top two maps, as they both show upper tier municipalities, and get rid of the bottom map since it's inaccurate (just waiting on Hwy43's opinion). Mattximus (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand you correctly, Upper tier municipalities are divided into lower tier, while single-tier ones are both upper and lower tier at the same time. In that case, I would merge the upper and single tier ones together, and create a map for them only. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-tiers are responsible for providing all local municipal services. Lower-tiers are like singles by providing some of the same local municipal services. Upper-tiers are also like singles by providing the balance of local municipal services not provided by the upper-tiers. Upper-tiers are the sum of two or more lower-tiers.
As singles are a combination of both uppers and lowers, including them with lowers is comparing apples to oranges and alternately including them with uppers is comparing apples to peaches. Although keeping singles and lowers together have merit for population comparison purposes, there is also merit in grouping singles and uppers together for the same. Since that would be redundant, I continue to suggest that all three statuses should be separated. It is certainly the cleanest and, IMO, least confusing solution (or least confusing within the already much too confusing municipal structures established by Ontario). Hwy43 (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your argument, and it makes sense. However, I believe the most useful format is the one currently provided. For example, imagine a kid doing a school project and needs to find the largest cities and towns in the GTA by population. Right now that student can sort, and find the answer. With the three tables suggestion, the student will have to sort, write them all down, then scroll down, sort again, then write those all down, then compare the two lists. This is just one example. I feel that in order for this to be useful, the list should be sortable. The division we have now makes sense, since the first table is not what people would consider a city/town, but the second list is what most people would indeed consider a city/town. I believe this division is the most pragmatic approach to this page. Mattximus (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-tiers are responsible for providing all local municipal services. Lower-tiers are like singles by providing some of the same local municipal services. Upper-tiers are also like singles by providing the balance of local municipal services not provided by the upper-tiers. Upper-tiers are the sum of two or more lower-tiers.
- Recognized and valid, but we do however have List of cities in Ontario and List of towns in Ontario that allow readers to sort all cities and all towns within the province respectively regardless if they are singles or lowers, not to mention the StatCan source that provides the same sorting functionality for census subdivisions (municipalities or municipal-equivalents), which allows comparison of all cities with all towns, villages, etc. I'm not certain we have to cater to all permutations of potential researcher needs when there are alternatives a click away to meet their needs.
Regarding your example, note that a researcher is unable to determine the largest cities and towns in the GTA on this article as there is not a column in which the GTA is an attribute. I assume that the Greater Toronto Area article already covers this in some manner. If not, it should. Regardless, your point about this being one of multiple examples that could apply here is understood. Hwy43 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Recognized and valid, but we do however have List of cities in Ontario and List of towns in Ontario that allow readers to sort all cities and all towns within the province respectively regardless if they are singles or lowers, not to mention the StatCan source that provides the same sorting functionality for census subdivisions (municipalities or municipal-equivalents), which allows comparison of all cities with all towns, villages, etc. I'm not certain we have to cater to all permutations of potential researcher needs when there are alternatives a click away to meet their needs.
- Haven't receive a reply to the above. Want to say that resolution of this matter is not a must, in my opinion, for achieving FL status. Let's not let this stand in the way. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps my example was not the best, but I'm glad you see merit in keeping the list format as is (counties/districts in one, and cities/towns/villages in the other). When you have a large list like this, I much prefer the ability to sort and use the information over the technical divisions which may not be as pragmatic. I want to make wikipedia a useful resource for my students and feel that this format would be optimal. I would consider it resolved as is, but perhaps we can hear what Nergaal has to say? Mattximus (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't receive a reply to the above. Want to say that resolution of this matter is not a must, in my opinion, for achieving FL status. Let's not let this stand in the way. Hwy43 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second set of resolved comments from Nergaal |
---|
*I like how the list is progressing now. However, I would like a bit more info in the intro, which I think would clarify things even more. In the second paragraph, after ""a geographic area whose inhabitants are incorporated"." please say how much of the total population and total area does that mean. Also, at the end of the paragraph, please say how many municipalities of each three types are there, and how much population and area do each cover. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from TBrandley (T • C • B) 19:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Best, TBrandley (T • C • B) 00:24, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Third set of resolved comments from Nergaal |
---|
*Quick question: why are there only like 10 purple things in the image, instead of some 170-something? Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support the list looks much better now (and feel free to cap/hide my multiple comments left here). Nergaal (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could we still have the map showing where the municipalities are? Probably beside the 17% statement. This new one shows Toronto as unincorporated as Northern Ontario. A single-tier map might also be helpful, to offset the upper-tier one. Just some thoughts to throw out there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't show it as unincorporated. Hwy43 (talk) 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't show it as incorporated either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the 19 other census subdivisions, differentiating the 10 unincorporated districts from the 9 incorporated single-tier municipalities would be a revert of the effort to resolve the above concern.
Separate maps showing the 17% land coverage and a single-tiers are possible. However, the land areas of some municipalities will be so small that they may be indiscernible at the scale of the upper-tiers map. Hwy43 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Hwy43 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These new maps are excellent and think they address the question about 17% of the land surface incorporated. I am wondering if we could do without the first as it is both a little redundant (the third map shows exactly the same thing, but with a bit more detail), and also messes up the formatting. Just a suggestion. Mattximus (talk) 03:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Among the 19 other census subdivisions, differentiating the 10 unincorporated districts from the 9 incorporated single-tier municipalities would be a revert of the effort to resolve the above concern.
- It doesn't show it as incorporated either. 117Avenue (talk) 05:24, 30 July 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 August 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
List of colonial governors of New Jersey
- Nominator(s): ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been worked on this article for the past three months, starting on 1 March 2013, when I came across it while looking for information about an ancestor of mine, Lord Neil Campbell, who served as Deputy Governor in East Jersey. When I encountered the article that day, it looked like this, and I decided to bring it up to the standard set by List of colonial governors of Massachusetts (a featured list which includes another two of my ancestors). After contributing 278 edits (out of 389 total) to expand this article, I think the work I can bring to this article is done, and I am nominating this article for featured list status confident that the reviewer's suggestions will put the last finishing touches on the article. My only regret is that I have not been able to find any more fair-use portraits of the colonial governors (while I have been able to find several images claiming to be some of them, they are either very dubious or incorrectly labeled). I look forward to your comments, suggestions, and support. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article seems fine to me; it's complete and full of detail. Nice work. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This article meets all the criteria for a feature list.
- 1.Prose - I see no problems with the writing style. The writing is at least as good as you would see in a regional newspaper or magazine.
- 2.Lead - The lead clearly sums up all the information in the article, and encourages the reader to continue reading the article.
- 3.Comprehensiveness - The article thoroughly covers all of New Jersey's colonial governors, and is extremely well-referenced.
- 4.Structure. The article is divided into sections with tables that are easy to read, and the way that the sections are divided (e.g., governors of East Jersey) makes sense from a historic standpoint.
- 5.Style. I see no conflicts with the Manual of Style, and the article has a lot of pictures and tables.
- 6.Stability. No edit warring is occurring.
- DavidinNJ (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not quite as simple as DavidinNJ may think I'm afraid. A very quick scan over the list...
- WP:YEAR throughout, i.e. year ranges in the same century don't need to repeat the century.
- Done (28 June 2013). Fix format for years so that century is not repeated. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Section headings need this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still outstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " Lord Berkeley" no need to suddenly Lord him, Berkeley is fine.
- Several portraits are missing, would be better to have a centrally-aligned em-dash or similar to show it's not just "still loading" or something.
- Reply I stated above my regrets that I could not locate more fair-use portraits for several governors despite contacting several archives/museums/libraries. There are allegedly portraits for Kieft (dubious, cannot find anything substantiating it) and Coxe (actually a portrait of his son), and Reading (though other sources claimed it could be any of three other people). I will put an em-dash in those empty cells where no portrait is coming. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done emdashes added to cells without portraits. (29 June 2013).--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Names usually sort by surname, the tables here seem to differ from that idea.
- No good reason for Notes to be sortable.
- Why are some notes referenced while many others aren't? Where are the "unreferenced" notes referenced?
- Reply: If I used one or two sources for the several notes attached one of the governors, I put the citation at the end of the bulleted list rather than have each bulletpoint statement end with the same note.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, on my next pass I'll need to check your notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've added additional sources, and repeated citation for several of the bulletpointed statements.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, avoid blank cells, so avoid blank notes.
- And what would be the solution to this? I could tell someone to avoid construction traffic on Fifth Avenue, but it's rather useless unless I advise them of a detour route.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple en-/em-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - emdash added to that one empty "notes" cell. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "24 May 1626[24]" some punctuation missing.
- Are you certain your map images are accessible?
- All tables should comply with MOS:DTT for accessibility for screen readers.
- "(c.1612-1672)" en-dash needed.
- Avoid linking common terms like "hurricane".
- Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "debtors prison" should be "debtors' prison".
- Done (29 June 2013) --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is the "portrait" col sortable?
- Why is the "Restoration of New Netherland (1673–1674)" table sortable (with just one entry)?
- "See notes above." - not useful in a sortable table.
- "The oak tree is said to be more than 500 years old." citation needed.
- Done (29 June 2013). Citation added. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " the oldest building at Princeton University" citation needed... common theme here, you need to make sure the captions are adequately referenced.
- Done (29 June 2013). Citation added to Nassau Hall/Princeton, the Keith line map, and Proprietary House images. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "(1686 – 1767)" be consistent with spacing around the en-dash.
- See also is massively overdone. First, remove all items that already are linked to in the article. Second, try to work out how (or why) a reader could (or would) make a link between this article and, say, List of mayors of New York City.
- Done (29 June 2013) removed those mentioned in article, removed two NYC links. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Check all references for compliance with WP:DASH.
- Further reading: " 1702—1738" vs "1664-1738" - please apply WP:DASH and WP:YEAR consistently across the whole list.
That's it for a first pass, plenty more if required I'm sure! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @RamblingMan...thanks for your first pass. I'm afraid I'm not really skillful at the syntax of tables and largely have used the table format from another article, I'll have to chalk this one up to the learning curve and see what skills I can acquire in the next day or two. Could you see if there are "plenty more" so I can address them all in one fell swoop tomorrow morning and afternoon?--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'll only be on-wiki intermittently between now and Sunday, so I can't guarantee that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, I fixed all the technical issues that you cited. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to David for assisting in these repairs. Very much appreciated. --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: I assert that as of 6 July 2013 either I or User:DavidinNJ have rectified and addressed each of issues raised by User:The Rambling Man above. If these are his only grounds for his opposition, please take note of my effort to remedy them. I will contact him and ask for him to give a second look if there are further issues in addition to those above, or if he approves of how I addressed the issues enumerated above (See: [5]). Please take this into consideration.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further
- "(1655)[24]Template:Rp:172-177Authorized " eh?
- Done. Fixed template format, "authorized" began next bullet point. --ColonelHenry (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "pp.287-305" en-dash please. Check others.
- Done. After a few passes, I believe I've found the stray remaining hyphens.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Space between pp. and range or not? Space between p. and page number or not? Be consistent throughout the whole list.
- Comment: Is there a policy regarding style on this one? I've generally chosen to not use a space after pp.141–143, or p.56 just to avoid wide gaps between sentences due to the rp template's format. I haven't found a dictum stating space or no space in this situation. I think, after doing several passes to check the endash thing with this issue that my omitting a space is the consistent usage, I do not see any remaining stray spaces. I would consider this one done unless your or I happen across a style/policy instructing me to put in a space.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't try to enforce a particular style, I tried to enforce consistency. E.g. ref 101 has a space.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Reference 101 did not have a space when I checked. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sir Edmund Plowden (1590–1659)." see WP:CAPTION, this isn't a complete sentence so it shouldn't have a full stop.
- Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- " 600 years old. [82]" no spaces between punctuation and refs.
- Done -- ColonelHenry (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please check for correct implementation of WP:DASH, e.g. "pp.121-128" should use an en-dash, not a hyphen (there are several page ranges in the refs which fail this too). And "The relative locations of New Netherland (magenta) and New Sweden (blue) in eastern North America." is not a complete sentence so shouldn't need a full stop (per WP:CAPTION), please check others as I noted above. Also, please ensure tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Which particular references are not in compliance? I'd rather you tell me which ones instead of making me go out on a wild goose chase or spend time and still not see what you are seeing.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 81 for instance. And not sure but it looks like the Mcreary book is using an em-dash in the year range, not an en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ref 81 & Mcreary to en-dashes. --ColonelHenry (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "pp.121-128" fixed. Done. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- full stop removed from picture caption above-mentioned, and two additional. Done --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply as for "ensuring tables meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes"...I don't know what that means, or what you want me to look for. If there is a problem, bring it to my attention. I'd prefer not having to fumble for a light switch in the dark only to find there are no problems needing to be addressed. Please eludicate and specify any particular problems that need to be remedied. --ColonelHenry (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. This is to help screen reading software announce the table correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Still, I would like an example...something to chalk up to the learning curve. The tables are written so that the column is first introduced as a width parameter, none of the examples provide an indication of how to work the scope around that. I cut and pasted the table from an article where I thought their table matched what I needed here. So, if you want me to change anything (and I'm amenable to learn how), an example of what you mean would be appreciated for the benefit of this novice in the world of tables.--ColonelHenry (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much any recently-promoted FL will demonstrate the appropriate inclusion of
scope="row"
andscope="col"
. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would assuming that being the FL-delegate, you'd be able to point me to an apposite example (as I've asked for twice) instead of expecting me to go out on an aimless grail quest not knowing what to look for. So, I'll put it to you this way, please tell me how to adapt the excerpt below, or provide me an example that applies to the table format from the article, excerpted below. I'm asking you to show me, not tell me to search. With the limited time I can attend to improving articles on Wikipedia, I'd rather not waste it being told to look for something I am clueless about when it will take a few moments of your time to tell/show me what you want. Thank you. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We all have limited time I'm afraid. You can find recently promoted lists here and as an example, you could look at List of NK Maribor players:
- Pretty much any recently-promoted FL will demonstrate the appropriate inclusion of
{| class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders" style="text-align:center;" |+List of Maribor players, and displaying the types of accomplishments and statistics by the players during their time with the club{{ref label|Statistics|A|A}} |- ! scope="col" width="200"|Name ! scope="col" width="200"|Country represented ! scope="col" width="15"|First ! scope="col" width="15"|Last ! scope="col" width="15"|Seasons ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Apps ! scope="col" width="15" data-sort-type="number"|Goals |- ! scope="row" align=left|{{sortname|Tomislav|Prosen}} .... .... ....
Copy and paste that into a sandbox to see the code. I'm not here as FL director to show you everything like this I'm afraid, my commitments to this project extend way beyond just this one list. One of the major issues I have is with drive-by pile-on supports by people who clearly haven't taken the time to examine the quality of a list against the criteria, most pertinently the MOS. Sorry if you find it difficult to do the research I've suggested. I guess we're all busy doing one thing or another. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're all on limited time, and it only took a few minutes of your time. I appreciate having an example to learn from, and will see what I can do forthwith. On the other hand, as a matter of general principle I'm of the school of thought that you don't teach a clueless kid to fish by pointing him to a bookshelf and say "have at it." --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite, I pointed you at the riverbank and some rods and said "have at it". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...after asking a few times saying "hey, the books don't cut it."--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'm done here. I've tried to help make the article scrape to the minimum quality required at FLC, the driveby supporters will get you over the line I'm sure. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for being an unwittingly incompetent novice with tables, and that trying to do the example you've provided has had the effect of screwing up the tables, after bringing them into compliance with your comments above. I simply just don't know how to do this. The tables work as is, but when I try doing what you want me to do (which I fail to see any benefit), I'm taking a few undesirable steps backward. So, after a valiant and willing effort to satisfy your insistence upon MOS:DTT, I have to give up on this one...especially since you're unwilling to provide sufficient assistance/instruction despite commentat(ing) and criticis(ing) and stack(ing) up bytes of nothingness while sniping from the perimeter. Perhaps I expect too much, because usually when I review a GA from time to time, for the minor things I can fix myself (like identifying or replacing stray hyphens), or if there's something a nominator doesn't understand, I roll up my sleeves and jump in. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't write all FLCs on behalf of editors. I've made a change to your list to show you something of what is required. If you want to "give up" then fine, my oppose stands, and I've provided you with (a) the MOS link (b) examples of tables which use the row and col scopes. Beyond that you're expecting me to do it all for you? No, that's not happening. Rest assured I'm much more inclined to assist those who are willing to listen rather than those who are prepared to copy and paste selected items of my user page here. (As for rolling up my sleeves... please. Check my edit history. I do my fair share. How rude to passively assert I don't. If you don't want to read/understand/learn how better to comply with MOS with respect to tables, that's your problem I'm afraid). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I asked you for help and for you to explain it, stating my obvious shortcomings with tables, and you gave me scraps I could not use. That was about as helpful as giving me as screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog. So apparently, instead of taking a few minutes to mentor and advise, you dictated and then get miffed because I still don't understand your less than informative explanation. Instead, I've asked for help here: [6] and will reach out to a few editors who might be able to give a few precious minutes to the greater cause instead of lecturing me on my lack of knowledge before the altar. Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well if pointing you to a precise guideline, and pointing you to an example of it in use (as per all recently-promoted FLs) is equivalent to giving you "scraps" or a "screwdriver to shoot a rabid dog", then I may as well give up and edit all these FLCs myself. Sorry you've had this disappointing experience. Perhaps it's all the more disappointing after the drive-by supports you already have who clearly haven't compared the list against the appropriate criteria. We tend to expect editors who nominate lists here to be competent and be able to take constructive advice (such as "see the MOS article" and "see the example of the MOS instruction in action") and we don't expect to have to do all the legwork. Maybe that's a surprise to you? In any case, I'm glad you've taken the gauntlet and asked for help from others, that's what Wikipedia is all about. Once we're done there, I'll be happy to re-visit and re-review in detail. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I expressed my willingness to learn and to take constructive advice, but when I point out the MOS guideline doesn't tell me what I need (i.e. none of the examples tell me how to adapt the content of the FLC to meet that guideline), I don't expect to be told to find something else to read. So, FYI, the guideline you call "precise" wasn't "precise." I only had to ask for a helpful and useable explanation like a half-dozen times before you getting pissed off not because you offer an inadequate answer, but because I had the audacity to respond stating that I don't get your inadequate answer. I didn't ask you to do all the legwork as you presume, I asked you to explain to me how to adapt my table text to meet your comment. So much for saying "hey, what do you mean?"...I get my head cut off for not knowing some obscure, useless, and (in terms of content) meaningless code. Thanks for taking half a day to provide me the explanation I asked for this morning. It took you all of five minutes to answer my question but you wasted a few hours getting there. Perhaps I'm just a little more helpful when someone kneels before the altar and says "I don't understand" oh mighty liege lord. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I do apologise for spending the day out trying to buy clothes, a cot etc for my new baby when, of course, I should have been supplicating myself at your own altar, providing you explanations you demanded this morning. Forgive me for not realising the altar was your's not mine. Forgive me for assuming there is no deadline. In any case, you've got all the information you need from me, along with an example edit. I can't do more than that other than edit your nomination myself. And that isn't my role. Please take onboard the great advice I'm sure you'll get from others and that will supersede mine no doubt, and good luck. In your own style, and as your user page says "Find a better line to draw in the sand before you deign to waste my time or piss me off.", I'm drawing the line now, no need to piss you off further, please let's disengage and I'll be happy to never engage with you again, so job done, ok? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be glad to disengage from this, for an FL-director, you're rather hostile when someone has a further question about what exactly you want when your first statement is vague and uninformative. Just think, I could have said done yesterday on this point when you said "hey, bring it into compliance with MOS:DTT" and I stated after looking at MOS:DTT, "what do you mean exactly, what are you looking for" and you immediately responded the instructions for row and col scopes are contained within MOS:DTT. thanks for the vicious circle...we could have avoided the problem if you answered my question then instead of giving me the FLC equivalent of a feedback loop. I could care less if you had to buy socks, when you said "do this", you just couldn't answer a simple question..."how?"...and yet you tell me I should be "competent."...sniping from the perimeter indeed. --ColonelHenry (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly noted. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not read all the above. In response to these edits, also this one, I've made these edits. Strictly speaking, it's unnecessary, since MOS:DTT was written when we served XHTML 1.0, where the rules were similar to HTML 4.0, kinda complicated. We now serve HTML5, where if the
th
element has noscope
attribute, that's setting the auto state, which was not present in the HTML 4.0 spec - it makes the header cell apply to a set of cells selected based on context. That is to say, if the first row of a table contains onlyth
elements, each one of those is implicitlyscope=col
- it doesn't need to be stated explicitly. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am grateful for your help, Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 08:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done MOS:DTT comments from User:The Rambling Man satisfied with help from User:Redrose64.--ColonelHenry (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOMINATOR'S COMMENT: The second round of suggestions for improvement and compliance added by User:The Rambling Man (q.v. above) have been addressed, and he has provided no further comments to be addressed in a week. As there are no currently unaddressed comments associated with his above-stated opposition, these comments should be considered resolved.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched and it appears to be quite comprehensive. Nice work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This is a fantastic article, the only thing I would suggest is cutting down on the See also links. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 05:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Comments from User Nergaal
- Since the topic of the article is a bit vague (New Jersey was formed much later) I strongly suggest showing an anachronistic map with all the entities discussed in this article overlaid on the current location of New Jersey. That way it is easy to understand the relevance of the entities discussed in this list to any new casual reader. Nergaal (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I do think that is a good idea and I will look into that idea moving forward. I do not know enough about making map images much less one with several overlapping layers, so I will have to reach out to editors with mapmaking experience. Further, the boundaries of the failed New Albion colony were never officially set and there are several different diverging notions of those boundaries among scholars. It is worth exploring whether (given the diverging scholarly opinions on boundaries) and the technical issues in the making of such a map whether this idea is feasible--which will not be a quick decision. However, as far as the featured list criteria are concerned, I do not believe this suggestion should hold up any decision on the promotion of this article. Thank you for an intriguing suggestion.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Umh, yeah, except for #4. Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: What do you mean #4? If you mean criteria 4, discussion of tables and MOS section guidelines doesn't apply, unless you can point something out others and I have missed.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Umh, yeah, except for #4. Nergaal (talk) 02:41, 3 August 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
Carry On series on screen and stage
The Carry On series (1958–78) was a long-running, low-budget British sequence of comedy films produced between 1958 and 1992. The series relied largely on innuendo and double entendre, and consisted of 31 films, one television series including three Christmas specials, and three West End and provincial stage plays. Next to the James Bond films, the Carry Ons comprise the largest number of films of any British series and are the second-longest continually-running UK film series (with a fourteen-year hiatus between 1978 and 1992). I have spent the last few weeks compiling this list ably assisted by my glamorous assistant SchroCat, and we believe that it now meets all the relevant criteria for it to be considered a featured list. -- CassiantoTalk 21:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This may be beyond the scope of this nomination, but is it possible to have the individual films/tv shows referenced in this list wiki-linked to this page? I checked the first two films and neither linked to this list. If it will become featured, it surely will benefit from the traffic from the individual pages. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]Edit On further inspection, it appears none of the pages link to this list, it's essentially an orphaned article, this needs to be fixed before being promoted. Mattximus (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - the article states that there were "numerous West End and provincial stage plays", yet only three are listed.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
====Comments from Crisco 1492====
|
- Support on prose. Solid work, guys (sorry took me so long, I thought you were still on the Call Me a Cab, but it seems you've gotten that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-counting comment from Soapfan12 |
---|
Comment
Comment: Archive all online sources with webcitation.org. You can use this page (step-by-step instructions there) to manually archive all online references which will guarantee they remain accessible even if the site goes down. After this has been resolved, I would be happy to support! SoapFan12 11:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Great job on meeting every single criteria for FL, espicially on the prose!
SoapFan12 16:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Thank you very much for the review Lemonade51. I will spend the day going through each and every reference to check for their accuracy. I must admit that it leaves element of doubt when there are inconsistencies in referencing, and that the others may follow suit. I will post my responses later. -- CassiantoTalk 06:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – A fine list. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I gave the page a light copy-editing earlier this month, but have not contributed anything of substance. I know an unreasonable amount about this gloriously dreadful series, and I think the nominators have boiled the constituent films down very skilfully here. As an overview of the series I don't see how this could be bettered. – Tim riley (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although I suggest you change the following: "Production lasted from March to May 1958, and was released in August of that year" - production was not released in August, so you need to add something like "the film" before "was released". In a similar vein, "Rothwell wrote a script called "Carry On Courting" but was re-titled by Rogers to Carry On Loving" needs changing - Rothwell was not re-titled so you need to add in "it" or similar..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 25 July 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
- Nominator(s):Caringtype1 and SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets every one of the Featured List criteria. There are plenty of reliable sources, and the information is presented in a clear and understandable way. Many issues and problems have been addressed in the months of improvements made to the article since then. We feel this article more than qualifies for Featured List status. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved. SoapFan12 23:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks great! Well referenced and written. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! SoapFan12 Talk
00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This list is well structured, written, and easy to understand. Barring slight differences, it is consistent with your previous revisions to other Daytime Emmy acting awards lists. Great work!
- -Birdienest81 (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks as it is sourced well and well written. Good work. Creativity97 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! SoapFan12 Talk
00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Thanks. I'm holding on the support until another reviewer takes a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Rejectwater (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments from Rejectwater
Rejectwater (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
([9], [10]), they do it the same way. SoapFan12 Talk page here
|
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Lemonade51 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Support My comments have been resolved. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I can see no issues whatsoever. This is a very good list. Congratulations to all involved. -- CassiantoTalk 23:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by JDC808
- Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 20:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good. I have one comment about the lead. There's a slight bit of repetition in the very first sentence (Daytime Emmy Award is used twice when it could be used once)."The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is a Daytime Emmy Award presented annually by..." This can be fixed by doing this "The Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series is an award presented annually by..."
- Comment: I am a bit worried over the fact that all the supports this has received come from the nominator
canvassingasking other users to comment. See [11], [12], [13], [14]. I was also asked to comment here and Hahc21 (talk · contribs) was also and was later even asked to promote this. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I think it's fine since the purpose of those comments were to get more reviews comments, not necessarily support. I don't believe my co-nominator, SoapFan12 was trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine." It was all in the interest of getting more feedback to improve the article.Caringtype1 (talk) 21:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Caringtype1. It's not canvassing if you keep the request perfectly neutral. I believe I kept it neutral. Furthermore, why? I would of love if you send me on my e-mail. Are you deliberately trying to embarass me? I could lose a lot of user friends because of this. I really do not appreciate this, please respect me. Also, I asked them if they are willing and if they said ″no″. I would respect that decision. I don't see asking people for reviews, a problem. I was not asking for a support. But thank you for warning me, I will stop asking. I never thought I was doing something wrong. SoapFan12 Talk
21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly wrong, however, I feel as if the amount is a bit over-the-top (also considering the fact that many people you asked to comment just supported and didn't leave any comments). I personally don't believe in requesting comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them; this FLC has been open for not even two weeks. I'm not trying to embarrass you. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. Thanks again for warning me and sharing you're opinion! You know what, I happen to agree with you ( only request comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them). It's sometimes, you feel that you want you're list to pass for featured status ASAP. Like Caringtype1 said, I was not trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine". Thanks again! SoapFan12 Talk
21:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's okay. Thanks again for warning me and sharing you're opinion! You know what, I happen to agree with you ( only request comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them). It's sometimes, you feel that you want you're list to pass for featured status ASAP. Like Caringtype1 said, I was not trying to do anything shady or insinuate something like, "I'll support yours, if you support mine". Thanks again! SoapFan12 Talk
- Not exactly wrong, however, I feel as if the amount is a bit over-the-top (also considering the fact that many people you asked to comment just supported and didn't leave any comments). I personally don't believe in requesting comments from other users unless the FLC is dead and is in a desperate need for them; this FLC has been open for not even two weeks. I'm not trying to embarrass you. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Caringtype1. It's not canvassing if you keep the request perfectly neutral. I believe I kept it neutral. Furthermore, why? I would of love if you send me on my e-mail. Are you deliberately trying to embarass me? I could lose a lot of user friends because of this. I really do not appreciate this, please respect me. Also, I asked them if they are willing and if they said ″no″. I would respect that decision. I don't see asking people for reviews, a problem. I was not asking for a support. But thank you for warning me, I will stop asking. I never thought I was doing something wrong. SoapFan12 Talk
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]
Nerina Pallot discography
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it to be complete and well referenced. I look forward to your comments and feedback. I'll try to respond ask quickly as possible. Thanks in advance. – Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SoapFan12 |
---|
Comment
|
Support. Great job on meetiing every single criteria for an FL! SoapFan12 11:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Indeed. Rothorpe (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much! :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chihciboy |
---|
Comments
Chihciboy (talk) 04:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chihciboy (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - I made slight edits here and here, its just mainly about the corrections the chart entries. Also, here's the official chart statistics of Nerina from the Official Charts Company. You could use this as a ref in the future. Other than that, I think the list looks better now. Well done! Chihciboy (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: Looks very informative, yet easy to ready.
- -Birdienest81 (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you :) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 20:57, 31 July 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 The Rambling Man 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]
Mayor of Pichilemu
- Nominator(s): Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last nomination failed because it lacked comments. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the criteria; furthermore I have based it from two other featured lists (Mayor of Jersey City, and Mayor of San Francisco). The article makes extensive use of authoritative local sources (Pichilemu News, maintained by a former city councilor, and El Expreso de la Costa, a monthly local newspaper). It deserves to be a FL, please consider this nomination and comment! Thanks! Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there something wrong with this nomination? To date it is the only "current nomination" that has not received a single comment. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 07:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with it, I think there's a tradition of avoidance in some relisted nominations. Sorry you haven't had any feedback, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to think it's more of an issue of people are hesitant to review nominations on topics that are unfamiliar to them. I've had the same issue with List of Sega 32X games still here almost a month later with only two commenters. That being said, I'll do my part here and see if I can help generate some comments. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with it, I think there's a tradition of avoidance in some relisted nominations. Sorry you haven't had any feedback, I'll see what I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Quick comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments from Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past...
That ought to get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 14:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - My concerns have been addressed, and I think this comes out as a strong list. Very nicely done! Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 02:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work on a list that, in my estimation, meets the six critera for inclusion a featured list. The prose quality is informative and professional. The Lede meets the requirements of the MOS and draws the reader into the article. It is comprehensive and a thorough examination of the topic (especially with both the list and timeline), and very well-organized. I do not see any issues of disagreement with the expectations of MOS and other guidelines, nor do I see any issues concerning stability. I applaud the work of the list's editors, and thank the nominator for presenting a well-prepared article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support: Looks good. I would just add format=PDF to ref 61 – Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, thanks for supporting my nomination! I have just added that to that ref, and spotted a couple of other PDFs/Excel spreadsheets/text files that were missing that. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:16, 29 July 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.