promoting 2 |
Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 3 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Bleach episodes (season 9)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Rangers managers}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Kills discography}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/The Kills discography}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama}} |
Revision as of 23:44, 6 January 2009
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [1].
List of Bleach episodes (season 9)
Another episode list. This and List of Bleach episodes are the last FLs needed for my Seasons of Bleach FT. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 12:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking forward to that FT—and the end of those Bleach episode lists;)!
- "a member of a hollow-hunting group the Gotei 13 normally does not interact with" Who or what is the "Gotei 13"?
- Wikilinked. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "well accepted" Maybe "well-received"?
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The following day, they move into the house next to Ichigo's, and
theybecome students at his school. "
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "by an assassin wielding a guandao "-->by a guandao-wielding assassin...
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ichigo calling out to her. "-->Ichigo's calls to her.
- "who Kifune kills"-->whom Kifune kills. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all references are reliable source. Summaries are easy to understand.Tintor2 (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2009 (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 User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [2].
List of Texas Rangers managers
previous FLC (11:13, 3 August 2008)
I have edited the article since its failed FLC, and I think it meets standards. This follows my format from List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim managers and List of Seattle Mariners managers. Thanks for the comments in advance. --LAAFansign review 05:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference [3], I believe {{citenews}} would be a better template to use rather than {{citeweb}} since ESPN, a news network, is the publisher. Don't forget to include "author=Associated Press" and "date=2006-11-08" to the template. Done
- There's a problem with the table. "Reference" is where "Awards" is supposed to be, etc. Done
- ESPN is linked in one of the references, but why isn't Baseball-Reference linked in the others? Done Removed ESPN link.
- "Statistics are accurate through the 2007 MLB season." – I think it would make more sense to add that to the "Managers" section than the "Key" section. Done
— RyanCross @ 06:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Killervogel5
- Replace the en-dashes used for blanks with em-dashes.
- Baseball-reference.com is not a publisher; it is a work. The publisher is Sports Reference LLC. All of the B-R references need to be changed.
- In the lead, link playoffs to "Playoffs#Playoffs in Major League Baseball."
- "Ted Williams is the only Rangers manager to have been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame." - reference
- The asterisk does not appear bold in the table so it should not be bold in the key.
- "GC-games coached" should be "GM-games managed", since coaches and managers in baseball are distinct.
- There is no general managers' table or information in the article (list) itself, so that information should be removed from the lead. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be updated to include the 2008 season since it is complete.
- You discuss very few managerial superlatives or anything of that nature in the lead. See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers or List of Minnesota Twins managers for examples. An overview of franchise history is important as well considering the team's move.
- "There have been thirteen interim managers in Rangers history." - needs a reference. Who says they were "interim"?
- Removed and moved to talk page until ref is found.
- "it was decided Connie Ryan would not finish the season." - by whom? This needs a reference or the wording should be altered.
- There is no sorting. There is also no reference at all to pennants or championships won.
- Table rows should be able to stand alone, so all years in the table should be linked, and there should be a line in the key table explaining that years are linked to the corresponding Senators'/Rangers' season.
- Additionally (KV5)
- The "focus on interim managers" that was never addressed in the previous FLC is still present and should have been fixed before any re-nom was attempted.
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to complete some of these. Give me some time. RyanCross @ 22:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done as much as I can for now. — RyanCross (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - many prose problems that goes against WP:WIAFL
- There have been 23 managers in the history of the Texas Rangers Major League Baseball franchise. - this should not be the opening sentence, the following sentence should open the list.
- The Rangers are based in Arlington, Texas and are members of the American League West division. - this should be reworded as The Rangers are an American baseball franchise based in Arlington, Texas. They are members of the American League West division.
- The Rangers franchise was formed in 1961 as a member of the American League. - that's it? There needs to be more explained on their history, what happened after this? Who currently owns the team, the venue they play at, etc (more on their history)
- Mickey Vernon became the first manager of the Texas Rangers, then called the Washington Senators, in 1961, serving for just over two seasons. - the part about them being called the Senators should be in the first paragraph
- Bobby Valentine has managed more games and seasons than any other coach in Rangers history. - So? What was the record?
- The only Rangers manager to make it to the playoffs in October is Johnny Oates, who won the 1996 Manager of the Year Award with the Rangers. --->The only Rangers manager to lead the team to the playoffs was Johnny Oates, who also won the 1996 Manager of the Year Award with the Rangers.
- In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired. The interim manager chosen was Eddie Yost. - how about merging these...In 1963, manager Mickey Vernon was fired and replaced by interim manager Eddie Yost.
- One game later, Yost was replaced by Gil Hodges. - why? This leaves the reader in question.
- In 1973, manager Whitey Herzog was replaced by Del Wilber. One game later, Billy Martin took over the role of manager. - why? Who appointed him, why was he appointed, same applies to the above sentence
- After six games, it was decided Connie Ryan would not finish the season. - this just stands out because in the previous sentence you say that Martin was replaced by Stanky, so where did Ryan come from?
- Billy Hunter took over the role of manager, only to replaced in the midseason by Pat Corrales. - add a be before replaced
- In 1982, Don Zimmer's poor performance forced the Rangers to hire Darrell Johnson midseason. - add as his replacement during the midseason after Darrell Johnson.
- In 1985, after years of losing seasons, Doug Rader was replaced by Bobby Valentine. Valentine was later replaced midseason by Toby Harrah. --> In 1985, after Doug Rader led the Rangers to (exact number of seasons) losing seasons, he was replaced by Bobby Valentine, who in turn was replaced by Toby Harrah during the midseason.
- In 2001, Johnny Oates's poor performance forced the Rangers to hire Jerry Narron midseason. - ++as his replacement during the midseason after Narron's name.
- The current manager of the Texas Rangers is Ron Washington, who has led the team since 2007. - ++managed not led
- The color on the fifth entry should only cover his name, not the whole row per previous passed FLCs
- See List of Philadelphia Phillies managers for an example of an FL prose.
- Footnotes need to be added to the article as seen in the above FL
- The table says that statistics are correct as of the 2007 season, yet the 2008 season just occurred, so it needs to be updated.SRX 00:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The only Rangers manager to lead the team to the playoffs"-->The only Rangers manager to have led the team to the playoffs...
- "There have been thirteen interim managers in Rangers history." "thirteen"-->13.
- "After six games, it was decided Connie Ryan"-->After six games, it was decided that Connie Ryan...
- Add a note about each year link in the "Term" column being linked that team's season—see List of Houston Astros managers.
- The placeholding 0s before the decimal points are unnecessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All issues resolved. Nice work. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from NatureBoyMD
- (image caption) "Ron Washington (left),
thecurrent manager of the Rangers"
- "Frank Lucchesi" should be linked in the prose.
- There are five instances of the term "the midseason." The mid season isn't a specific time in a season like the pre-season or the post-season. The only way "the midseason" might be correct is if you meant at the All-Star break (even then, you should specify at the All-Star break). Try replacing "the midseson" with just "midseason" or a specific date or just a month.
-NatureBoyMD (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 User:Scorpion0422 23:44, 6 January 2009 [3].
Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
This was written in the same way as season 1 and season 2, so it should be good enough to be a Featured List. Let the nitpicking begin. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The season begins with the protagonist and his friends Sokka, Katara, and Toph traveling" This phrase uses the noun + -ing sentence structure, which is ungrammatical. Consider: "In the season's beginning, the protagonist and his friends Sokka, Katara, and Toph are traveling...
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Prior antagonist and anti-hero Zuko"-->The former antagonist and anti-hero Zuko...
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The final season featured twenty-one episodes, as opposed to the twenty episodes contained within each of the previous two seasons."-->The final season features twenty-one episodes, one more than in the previous two seasons.
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Allthe DVDs were encoded solely for Region 1."- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Episodes were written by a team of writers, which consisted of Aaron Ehasz, Elizabeth Welch Ehasz, Tim Hedrick, John O'Bryan; along with creators DiMartino and Konietzko." Why is this in the past tense? Has the team disbanded?
- Well, as season 3 is the last season, yes, I believe they have disbanded. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mark Hamill joins the cast to voice Fire Lord Ozai, who, while having a major role in the plot, had previously only been shown playing minor roles in the series."-->Mark Hamill joins the cast to voice Fire Lord Ozai, who, for the first time in the series, has a major role in the plot.
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The season also received
somepraise for its video and sound quality."- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and Joaquim dos Santos was nominated "Directing in an Animated Television Production"" Word missing.
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Aang accidentally takes a school uniform and is taken to a Fire Nation school" Comma after this phrase.
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "over the objections of Sokka and the rest"-->against the objections of Sokka and the rest...
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, Katara feeds Appa berries to make it seem like Appa is sick." How does this contradict the previous sentence?
- Clarified. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and he helps her to destroy the factory polluting the water."-->and he helps her to destroy the water-polluting factory.
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meanwhile, Iroh devises a plan for escaping the prison"-->Meanwhile, Iroh devises a plan to escape the prison...
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "body building" I believe it is one word.
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The gang discovers there have been strange disappearances in a spooky town" Add that before "there".
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Feeling he is unprepared" Add that before "he".
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hakoda returns with several people who" "who"-->whom.
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "of the Sun Warriors
in orderto learn"- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The DVDs contain five episodes in four volumes, with a boxed set following." What do you mean by "following"?
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/List:of:assets:owned:by:Viacom.htm is not a reliable source, it is a mirror of the Wikipedia article.- Interesting. I never noticed that. New source from CNET. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://firefox.org/news/articles/959/1/Review---Avatar-The-Last-Airbender---quotThe-Day-of-Black-Sunquot-Parts-I-amp-II/Page1.html a reliable source? I know that it is sourcing a review, but how do we know that the quotations were transcribed accurately if we don't know how reliable the source is?Bah, I hate WP:RS, especially because I know that's right. I'll hunt around for another source.- Note to Haha16 - I could use help on this one; you're usually pretty good about finding sources. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I ended up replacing the quote entirely and adding a note about Sozin's Comet. However, if you can work the quote back in, that would be great, because I really liked it. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://nickmag-comics.livejournal.com/13799.html a reliable source?- New source (IGN). NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://news.tvonmedia.com/tvom_news_by_show/Avatar-The-Last-Airbender-Complete-Book-3-DVD-Special-Features.shtml?- New source. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 04:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for your quick responses. I am Wiki-bonked for the day, so I will look at your fixes tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
- The season, and especially the finale, received much critical acclaim, with praises from sources such as DVD Talk[2] and IGN. - "especially" is point-of-view, I would replace it with mainly and remove the "and" if you do that.
- Especially highlights the fact that the finale was indeed one of the most highlighted parts of the season, but that reason of the season was praised as well. I feel that "the season, mainly the finale, received much critical acclaim" makes it seem that only the Season Finale received acclaim. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The season's executive producers and co-creators are Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko, who worked alongside episode director and co-producer Aaron Ehasz - the rest of the article is in past tense, so "are" should be were
- Done. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:24, 5 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 06:24, 4 January 2009 [4].
The Kills discography
previous FLC (06:55, 14 August 2008)
I believe I have addressed the main concerns with the list from the last FLC. I haven't submitted anything to FLC for quite some time, so please let me know if there's anything new or different I haven't done. Thanks. Drewcifer (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "Meds" feature The Kills, or just Mosshart? I've seen both being used, and clarification is needed as it's a point of comprehensiveness. Sceptre (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Just a few comments...
- ChartStats.com doesn't support the claim that Midnight Boom reached number one on the UK Indie Chart
- Maybe include formats and catalog numbers?
- Title → Album details FIXED
- Video → Video albums
- The link to the studio albums section doesn't work in the infobox FIXED
-- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The comments from User:Underneath need to be resolved
- The Kills debuted in 2002 with the Black Rooster EP, released on Domino Records. wouldn't it be by and not on?
- Included with a limited number of copies of No Wow was a feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love, directed by The Kills and Morgan Lebus. - comma before was
- Are the references in the music videos section, located on the name of the song/video also citing the directors? If so, it would be best to move them to the directors.
- The EPs need verification by a source. So does the Video section.
- Since a source is verifying one of the songs in the other compilations section, where is the source for the compilation in 2005?
- One of the general sources covers it ([5], at the bottom).
- The note should go in a footnotes section and the templates {{note}} and {{ref}} should be used instead of the current format.--SRX 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the lead:
"The Kills have released three full-length studio albums, three extended plays, nine singles, ten music videos, a documentary…" – I don't think documentaries should be part of a discography. Also, you might want to make sure the terminology is consistent, as I Hate the Way You Love is referred to as a documentary in the lead, but then as a video in the body of the list.
"The Kills have released three full-length studio albums" – Is "full-length" necessary?FIXED"Between three studio albums, The Kills have release nine singles…" – Remove this, as it is a repetition from what is said in the first sentence.
- Reworded to avoid being repetitive.
"Included with a limited number of copies of No Wow was a feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love". – This sentence may not need a comma, but it surely could be worded better. Rather than having the verb at the beginning and the subject at the end, try to put them together: 'A feature-length tour documentary titled I Hate the Way You Love was included with a limited number of copies of No Wow.'FIXED
- For peak chart positions:
Insert a line breakFIXED<br />
between each chart abbreviation and its reference link. For example,!style="width:3em;font-size:75%"|[[Top Heatseekers|US<br />Heat.]]<br /><ref name="AMG charts" />
Wikilink UK to UK Albums Chart.FIXED"US Ind." --> "US Indie" and "UK Indie Chart" --> "UK Indie"
The Chart position for the UK Indie Chart is not referenced.
- For the albums:
Rename the 'Albums' section to 'Studio albums'. Extended plays are albums too. This is also consistent with the Infobox.FIXEDFor studio albums, add catalog numbers and format releases. Most FL discographies have this, and it is recommended at MOS:DISCOG. Same for the extended plays, if such is possible. An easy way to find this information is through the album entries at Allmusic. For example, Keep on Your Mean Side was released as a CD and LP while the main catalog number is 124.FIXEDVerify all music label entries are correct and complete. According to the link above, Keep on Your Mean Side was released on Rough Trade Records, Sanctuary Records and Domino Records. Similar issues with No Wow, Black Rooster EP and Fried My Little Brains.
- The thing with multiple labels is that it can all get a little convoluted with re-releases, co-releases, multiple releases in different territories, etc. So, it's always been my approach to boil it down to the original domestic release, in the case of the ones you mentioned, is Domino records.
According to the cover art, the EP is named Fried My Little Brains rather than Fried My Little Brains EPFIXED
- For the music videos section:
Change the heading Song to Title. Remember, these are not songs, but rather they are music videos.FIXEDFor the videos "The Good Ones" and "U.R.A. Fever", use the following references: [6] and [7]. The current references does not indicate the directors.FIXED"Fashion Rocks! 2005 - Prada" seems to be title of the video directed by United Visual Artists, rather than "No Wow".
- Good catch. Upon further research, my understanding is that it's more of a video showcasing Prada, featuring the Kills, set to "No Wow." Which means it technically isn't really a music video at all, more like an commercial. So I removed it from the table. Drewcifer (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the videos "Cheap and Cheerful" and "Last Day of Magic", could you explain why is Promo News a reliable source? (Just for clarification)
In regards to the note on "Kissy Kissy", was it the song or the music video to be "taken from I Hate the Way You Love"? You might want to specify this.FIXEDSince there are really only two notes in the whole table, you can just move them to the footnotes section. I'd also recommend the use of {{Ref label}} and {{Note label}} rather than {{Ref}} and {{Note}}, as the latter ones can be cause a bit of mess when used in tables.
Could you rename the section "Original contributions to compilations" to simply "Collaborations"? Or otherwise, could you explain why it is important to mention that two songs were recorded were on compilations or tribute albums?
- I think that "Collaborations" implies that there was some sort of creative dialogue between people, rather than The Kills doing their own thing and putting it on a compilation album. I'm not sure if I follow your second question, but if I understand the question correctly, my answer would be that it is important to mention it since it is music from the group that was released only on those records, so it therefore is part of the body of work/discography.
*Avoid using Amazon.com as a reference or store retails in general. Replace it with this link for "Restaurant Blouse". Ditto for "I Call It Art (Le Chanson de Slogan)"
- Fixed the first, but not the second one, since that one's covered by the general reference.
"Love is a Deserter" --> "Love Is a Deserter". As well, "I Call it Art" --> "I Call It Art (Le Chanson de Slogan)"\
- The French title is what the song is a cover of, but not part of the Kills' song's title.
Until these issue are solved or addressed, I'll have to oppose the promotion of this to FL. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 22:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thorough review. I fixed a bunch of the issues your pointed out, but a couple of them I boil down to preference, so I suppose where my preference differed from yours I left it as is. But I'm obviously willing to discuss those particular instances if you completely disagree. I'm still working on a few of them, which I should be finished with shortly. Drewcifer (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sorry for not replying for a while. You've addressed my main concerns and the article seems just fine to me. Good job and good luck! Do U(knome)? yes...or no 08:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 06:24, 4 January 2009 [8].
List of National Historic Landmarks in Alabama
I want to have this list assessed for FL, it has been peer reviewed and the reviewer felt it was ready. Myself and Doncram have been the primary contributors, but the list structure involved substantial input from our project, the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. This is the first of the 50 state National Historic Landmarks lists to be nominated for FL. (List of National Historic Landmarks in New York was nominated and failed.) Thanks. Altairisfartalk 20:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments:
- We don't use "This is..." for lists anymore. Make a more descriptive opener.
- Cut the blue out of the table. It serves no purpose and is unnecessarily distracting.
- The "The table below lists all of these sites, along with added detail and description." is unnecessary.
- Find someone to spot-check the images for proper sourcing/permissions/etc.
- That's it for now. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first three are done, working on the fourth. Thanks. Altairisfartalk 22:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Sephiroth BCR objected to the use of color because, I assume, he/she did not understand the purpose of the color, which is to provide consistent color-coding of various types of NRHP properties in mixed tables of NRHPs created by WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. The coloring system was explained in a footnote to the top left cell of the first table, and it could also be linked from each of the differently colored numbering cells in the table. The article coloring scheme will not be immediately obvious to a reader who is not familiar with more of the NHL and other NRHP list articles. However, there is a purpose to it, and it enhances the reading for the more informed reader while not detracting from the experience for a less informed reader, in my view.
- This article, being mostly a tabulation of the NHLs in one state, used the NHL blue color mostly. A different color is used for the NHL district or two within the first table; other different colors used in the third table. In my view, the color in the first table header (which Altairisfar removed) should be restored to NHL color blue. doncram (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored that color and I restored/added explanatory footnotes about the color-coding, now linked from the top left cell of each table. Note the color-coding info is also linked from the number in the first cell using each new color when it is introduced...namely, cell 1 in table 1, the Tuskegee Institute's number cell, the Yancey number cell, and the 3 entries in the 3rd table. This access to color-coding explanation is subtle, rather than hammering the reader over the head with it. The use of the color-coding makes sense in the larger context of the system of lists of NHL and NRHP lists. For example, see also List of National Historic Landmarks in New York, which uses more colors because more types of properties appear there. Again, I think the subtle use of color-coding helps for the more informed/interested reader, and it does not detract from the reading experience for the less informed. It suggests to the reader, correctly, that there is a distinction to be made between some of the properties vs. others. doncram (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't justify the blue in the top row of cells. Drop those. If you want to use color to identify the different NHLs, then add a key (see Chicago Bulls seasons#Year by year table, use symbols in addition to the color for the benefit of our colorblind readers), center the numbers (use align="center" | YOURTEXTHERE), and make them bigger. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the blue in top row, I don't think this would be controversial at the wikiproject. I'll leave a note there to make sure. My skills at markup language aren't good enough to center the numbers, though I tried. The template link to the key at NRHP colors legend within the number at the first occurrence of each color seems to be the problem, it needs different formatting. Altairisfartalk 00:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there was a reason for the blue NHL color in the header row, which Sephiroth would also not have understood upfront, namely that it is a table of NHLs. In the wikiproject, we have been using the different blue color for NRHPs (as used in this article for the Yancey site which is now an NRHP and no longer an NHL) for headers of those tables. There is a planned out system for many many articles. I don't think it is essential for the reader of just one article to see what the system of organization is; it is a feature enhancing the information for readers of many NRHP / NHL articles. That said, i don't mind terribly losing the NHL color here if that would secure Sephiroth's support. I've tried adding a key with symbols into the article. I don't want to increase the size of the numbers. Why do you want them increased in size? They are not official numbers, they are merely helpful row numbers which are helpful for clarifying how many items there are in a table. They should not be enlarged or bolded or otherwise highlighted further. Such numbering is helpful here, but even more helpful in longer lists of this type, and including them is a matter of the style worked out for these tables by the NRHP wikiproject. Further editing to use the symbols as well as the colors is still needed, if the new key is kept in. I am not sure if it is that helpful or not. The proposed list-article did have a key system (though without symbols) which was already explained in the article's notes and the available links. There is a danger in whipsawing the article through too many changes in response to semi-casual observations. Upon further consideration, does switching to a different key system really improve the article, once you understand there was a key system already? doncram (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what type of table this is; having a solid sheet of blue in the top row is by far not aesthetically pleasing, serves no purpose, and is distracting to the reader. It shouldn't be in any type of table. As for the numbers, I want them increased in size so a reader can read what on earth it is. There's no advantage to keeping them small, and you can barely see what symbol is used in the table. Adjust the template accordingly. As to your so-called "danger in whipsawing the article [...] in response to semi-casual observations," that's insulting. You're nominating this to be an item of featured content, and as such, it must meet community standards that the reviewers here, including myself, are very knowledgeable about. It's fine to state the reasoning as to why your doing things and quite another to bring accusations against the reviewers of this process who invest time and effort in ensuring that these lists are of the necessary quality to be featured. In any case, you need to use the symbol in every iteration of the said classification, and each needs to be wikilinked because the table is sortable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as insulting to you. You labelled your own comments as "Quick comments" and you made what I believe is an over-statement / misstatement (about the colors "It serves no purpose...."), when in fact there was an intended purpose for the colors. I do freely grant that the intended purpose may not have been adequately clear, and there is room for consensus improvement as well as room for personal taste differences. I don't believe it is disrespectful, and it was not meant to be, to comment about a danger of revising an article too much in response to semi-casual comments. Thank you for your comments. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter what type of table this is; having a solid sheet of blue in the top row is by far not aesthetically pleasing, serves no purpose, and is distracting to the reader. It shouldn't be in any type of table. As for the numbers, I want them increased in size so a reader can read what on earth it is. There's no advantage to keeping them small, and you can barely see what symbol is used in the table. Adjust the template accordingly. As to your so-called "danger in whipsawing the article [...] in response to semi-casual observations," that's insulting. You're nominating this to be an item of featured content, and as such, it must meet community standards that the reviewers here, including myself, are very knowledgeable about. It's fine to state the reasoning as to why your doing things and quite another to bring accusations against the reviewers of this process who invest time and effort in ensuring that these lists are of the necessary quality to be featured. In any case, you need to use the symbol in every iteration of the said classification, and each needs to be wikilinked because the table is sortable. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm attempting to change it according to the suggestions, but I may need help with the coding. BTW, I nominated the list, not Doncram. Altairisfartalk 04:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Unindent) Okay, it's done now. Altairisfartalk 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - many prose issues in the tables
- One of only two surviving South Dakota-class battleships, Alabama was commissioned in 1942 and spent 40 months in active service in World War II's Pacific theater, earning 9 battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese. - this is a run on sentence, reword to make it a complete sentence.
- Spain established this wattle and daub blockhouse on the Chattahoochee River in 1690, in an attempt to maintain influence among the Lower Creek Indians. - instead of in an attempt how about attempting
- This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not usually 2)no need for the comma.
- The interior contains a stairway that climbs in a series of double flights and bridge-like landings to the rooftop observatory. - I'm pretty sure a stairway does not climb, but it can lead or ascend. IMO, climb sounds awkward.
- This church served as headquarters from 1956 to 1961 for the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights, an organization active in the Civil Rights Movement. ---> This church served as the headquarters for the Alabama Christian Movement for Human right, an organization active in the Civil Rights Movement, from 1956 to 1961.
- This church was a starting point for the Selma to Montgomery marches in 1965 and played a major role in the events that led to the adoption of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. - 1)comma before and 2)Add it before played
- This was the first of the Gato class submarines to be completed before World War II and was launched on May 12, 1941. - how about Launched on May 12, 1941, this was the first of the Gato class submarines completed before World War II.
- It represents the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war. - represented not represents
- It is considered one of the best examples of Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture in the South. It is also one of the least-altered structures designed by architect Frank Wills. - instead of a period, add a comma and an and before it
- Delegates from six Southern states which had seceded from the Union met here on February 4, 1861 and on the 8th they adopted a "Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America." - 1)Comma in between which and Union 2)8th of what?
- This brick fort was completed in 1834 and was used by Confederate froces during the Battle of Mobile Bay. - typo on forces
- It was established in 1717 at the confluence of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers and was abandoned in 1763, after the Treaty of Paris. - comma before and
- This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted
- Constructed in 1898, this an excellent example of late 19th-century commercial architecture. - this is an excellent example is POV
- This small Carpenter Gothic church with wooden buttresses was built in 1853 and shows the influence of 19th-century architectural leader Richard Upjohn. 1)Comma in between with and buttresses 2)Comma before and
- It was the victim of a bombing by the Ku Klux Klan on 18 September 1963 in which four young girls were killed and twenty-two others were injured. - 1) consistency in the date formatting 2)Comma before in which
- Yancey, William Lowndes, Law Office [41] - why is this in italics in the list?
- This monument was established on May 11, 1961, when 310 acres (1.3 km2) of land were donated by the National Geographic Society to the American people. - was not were
- General Andrew Jackson's Tennessee militia, aided by the 39th U. S. Infantry Regiment and Cherokee and Creek allies, crushed the Creek Nation's Red Stick resistance at this site on the Tallapoosa River. - can another word be used versus crushed?
- For consistency, the publishers in refs #43 and #44 should be spelled out.
- The color of the tables have no purpose and should be removed.--SRX 22:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- See my comment above, to the first reviewer, about the purpose of the coloring in the table, which is not obvious at first glance but which does have reasons. I will restore the informative footnote about the color-coding. doncram (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose issues have been addressed. The color coding is the standard for NRHP tables, per practice and discussions at the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. Though it does not matter to me personally, completely removing it would require a consensus there. Altairisfartalk 23:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose [Opposition withdrawn] for the same reason that I earlier opposed the similar list for New York: the scope of the list is fuzzy. A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value. The assertion that these are "equally significant" is probably true, but (1) it is original research that is not based on the cited sources and (2) these sites have other designations (such as "national monuments" and "national historic sites") -- they are not "national historic landmarks." I have no objection to listing former landmarks in the article, but the list should not include other sites that never had this designation.
I have not reviewed the article thoroughly yet, but I have some concerns about prose similar to those stated by SRX. For example, I suggest restating "This is one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States" to something like "Gaineswood was designated an NHL because it is considered one of the most unusual examples of Greek Revival architecture in the United States."--Orlady (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I removed the "equally significant" phrase to which Orlady objected. It now reads "Though they are also historically significant at a national level, they are not also designated as NHLs." That is a 100% factual, true statement involving no original research. The NHL program has a priority to designate sites which are threatened; the probable true reason why these 3 sites are not named NHLs is that they were very well protected already in the National Park Service system. This assertion, however, is not stated in the article and does not need to be stated there.
- As for Orlady's objection on the inclusion of the 3 other National Park Service areas in the article, she states that "A list of National Historic Landmarks should be a list only of designated National Historic Landmarks, and should not also include National Park Service sites with historic value". But why not? Why should it not? Orlady does not object to the one former NHL site, which is also not an NHL. The list is more helpful to readers by identifying the other 3 major contenders for historically important sites in the state. There is no problem, as I see it, in including the 3, and in fact it is helpful. Perhaps Orlady believes it is too confusing for readers? That would be very negative about the ability of wikipedia readers to read and to comprehend what is stated in the list-article. I suggest that if other reviewers do not also object strongly to including those three, that Orlady's view, just on this one point, be disregarded.
- Also, Orlady, if you have specific objections to the prose in the article, it would be most helpful if you would state them. Otherwise, your objection about prose is vague. The 2nd reviewer's comments, above, are much more helpful. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking into account suggestions from several users, I've removed the sites that aren't National Historic Landmarks. This seems to have been one of the main reasons List of National Historic Landmarks in New York failed to attain featured list status. These sites are already covered in List of areas in the United States National Park System. I've also addressed the specific issue with prose in the Gaineswood text. Altairisfartalk 03:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally object to losing the sites that are not National Historic landmarks. As a reader/user of the list, I find it very helpful to have all of these sites in one article when trying to see historic sites there are in a given state. As a member of WP:nrhp, I guess it's what we have to do in order to get a list to featured list status. I am frustrated by the fact that Orlady's view by itself seems to be enough to derail the nominations of these lists. I'd be more in favor of changing the title of the list than of removing the additional sites. Or, I'd just disdain the honor of Featured List status, and keep the article the way it is. I am, however, extremely sympathetic to Altairisfar's desire to have the hard work he and Doncram have put into this list recognized. Therefore, I can reluctantly agree with removal of the other sites if that's what it takes.
- I am appreciative of the specific suggestions about prose. I have written many list descriptions, though not on this list, and I appreciate the input about specific phrasing. There are, however, some that I do not agree with.
- This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not usually 2)no need for the comma.
- Changing usually to usual changes the meaning. As originally written, the unusually refers to sophisticated. The house's Greek Revival architecture is unusually sophisticated. Changing it to unusual makes it refer to the house. The Greek Revival style house is unusual.
- This structure is an unusually sophisticated Greek Revival style plantation house, built in 1840. - 1)usual not usually 2)no need for the comma.
- It represents the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war. - represented not represents
- It represents what was then standard design. Because the design changed does not change the fact that the still existing submarine represents that style. Maybe It represents what was the standard design for American fleet submarines at the beginning of that war.
- This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted
- I'm guessing that 1) should be is not are. However, the house IS where but the house, cottage and water pump collectively ARE where...
- This house, cottage, and water pump are where deaf and blind Helen Keller was born and learned to communicate, assisted with the aid of her teacher and constant companion, Anne Sullivan. 1)is not where 2)remove assisted
- This monument was established on May 11, 1961, when 310 acres (1.3 km2) of land were donated by the National Geographic Society to the American people. - was not were
- An acre WAS donated. 310 acres WERE donated. OR "land WAS donated " but "acres of land WERE donated"
- Strong Support Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article. Since everyone will disagree about just what makes a perfect article. Heck almost immediately after an article is approved for this status someone will make some change or the other that would ruin said "perfection".
- "We don't use this is anymore..."says who? I suppose using it over and over again is not that creative. But on the other hand. How many ways can there be for telling someone what something is? A simple fix for this, though IMO it does not need fixing, would be to replace this with "(name of place) is....." OR would that not be Avant Gard enough? :-/ This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is recognized as being a non-argument argument. It implies somehow that a certain person's likes or dislikes constitute an objective, logical reason for the writers of an encyclopedia to do something.
- "Coloring of the table" That is a matter of personal taste. Don't go making it sound like your personal taste is the only way a list can be. Saying that the color coding confuses you, That only makes sense if there is no logic to the code. which there is. Different types of monuments have different colors. That made perfect sense to me. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....
- "The list sould be composed only of sites which are on the list of national historic monuments or some such." That assertion is far to limiting. Because there are official list of national historic "sites", "Architecture", "art" etc etc etc. If you read the essay WP:NOTOR gathering data under a common heading is not Original research or synthesis. Many pieces of historic art, or historic sites have monuments on them. This is a variation on the argument WP:IDONTLIKEIT....
- "Typo's"
The complaint about typo's is probably the only criticism with which I agree.That was one of the reasons I wrote in my peer review that I would not nominate this for FA status. There is an easy way to fix this. The Mozilla firefox browser has a built in spell checker. I use it all the time and forgot that not everyone does. It will underline each and every mispelled word. (just be sure that it inserts the appropriate word.) It cost nothing. Another thing you can do, if you havent, is check out wikipedia's enhanced editor. Look under your preferences, click gadgets, then "wiki ED". This alone is not a good reason to not have an article be a featured article. Heck I could fix those typo's in two minutes. So I will. Thus negating this quibble. (After checking for spelling errors) For example in one of the above "typos" it is said that represents should be replaced with represented. The submarine in that case sill does actively represent the way subs would be built at the begining of that war. Just like a large mockup of a Saturn V represents how NASA used to build spacecraft. Until it is destroyed it will continue to represents. I mean does the Great pyrymid of Giza represented the state of Architecture in the 3000's BC. :-? I would say it still represents. Many of the so called typo's are simmilar issues which reflect a individuals personal taste hence are just a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Which is no reason at all for anyone here to take any particular action.
- "Typo's"
- I strongly support this because as I have just argued there has only been one real reason given to deny this FL status. That was some spelling errors which have been addressed. The others are just matters of personal taste which can never please everyone. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to come here to do nothing but pout and claim that all the errors are "insignificant nitpicks" then don't bother commenting. It's disrespectful to the reviewers of this process and a disservice to the nominator of this article, who is doing an admirable job in bringing this list up to par. Our suggestions are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way, is solely for use in deletion arguments and has zero relevance to the discussion here), they are actionable suggestions on the aesthetics of the table that need to be addressed. The NHRP WikiProject does not exist in a vacuum. It does not make standards that trump community standards, and FLC's purpose is to recognize our best work by community standards, not the arbitrary standards of a random WikiProject. You obviously have no experience with the FL process, and as such, your claim that our concerns are irrelevant is all the more insulting. I would advise both you and Doncram to not comment on the nomination because as of now, you're doing nothing constructive for the candidate. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I kinda feel like i have to chime in, because you are telling me not to and I do not think that is right. Please note my response above (within this edit change) about your taking offense; i did not mean to insult you. I do agree with some of what you say and appreciate your helpful participation in this review. I do not think it is appropriate, however, for you to say who else should participate here and who should not, with respect to me and Hfarmer. User:Hfarmer has legitimate points and I appreciated hearing them; I expect that Hfarmer knows plenty well enough about the FL process and has much else to contribute on this and other FL nominations. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a better way to put it is this: If someone does not have any constructive comments to make, then that someone should not say anything at all. Let us stop arguing about who has the right to do or say what and focus on improving the article. I will post a full review of the list later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I kinda feel like i have to chime in, because you are telling me not to and I do not think that is right. Please note my response above (within this edit change) about your taking offense; i did not mean to insult you. I do agree with some of what you say and appreciate your helpful participation in this review. I do not think it is appropriate, however, for you to say who else should participate here and who should not, with respect to me and Hfarmer. User:Hfarmer has legitimate points and I appreciated hearing them; I expect that Hfarmer knows plenty well enough about the FL process and has much else to contribute on this and other FL nominations. doncram (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to come here to do nothing but pout and claim that all the errors are "insignificant nitpicks" then don't bother commenting. It's disrespectful to the reviewers of this process and a disservice to the nominator of this article, who is doing an admirable job in bringing this list up to par. Our suggestions are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which by the way, is solely for use in deletion arguments and has zero relevance to the discussion here), they are actionable suggestions on the aesthetics of the table that need to be addressed. The NHRP WikiProject does not exist in a vacuum. It does not make standards that trump community standards, and FLC's purpose is to recognize our best work by community standards, not the arbitrary standards of a random WikiProject. You obviously have no experience with the FL process, and as such, your claim that our concerns are irrelevant is all the more insulting. I would advise both you and Doncram to not comment on the nomination because as of now, you're doing nothing constructive for the candidate. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly support this because as I have just argued there has only been one real reason given to deny this FL status. That was some spelling errors which have been addressed. The others are just matters of personal taste which can never please everyone. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I found it useful to hear Hfarmer's candid reactions to the FL review process, as Hfarmer seems to have a lot of experience with peer review but has never previously contributed to an FLC discussion. However, I share Sephiroth's concern that attacking the FL review process is a tactic that is unlikely to help this list get promoted -- and even might possibly hurt its chances. --Orlady (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) If anybody has a problem with the way FL reviews are conducted, please bring them to WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in, for the record (and to the best of my knowledge) Hfarmer only very recently got involved with peer review. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 06:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hfarmer, I take issue with this comment: "Nitpicks, insignificant nitpicks all of the reasons to oppose are just that. Nowhere in the criteria WP:FL? does it say that an article needs to be perfect in order to be a featured article." Sure, a list will never be "perfect", but the point of this process is to smooth out all of the little details and make the article as perfect as possible. They may be minor errors and the like, but they should still be fixed. -- Scorpion0422 20:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say they should not be fixed. What I did say is that the issues raised above were more or less matters of personal taste being presented as if they were logical arguments. (i.e. Color coding the table) That is the essence of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it is a common part of the process that people decide if an article should be featured or not based on personal taste. Then just what does FL status really mean? It is not in fact there are criteria, which I feel that this article basically meets. After reading it and checking a random sample of the citations and consulting WP:FL? It was my opinion it met the criteria at least 98% of the way. I do not see how issues like removing coloration help get it that last little 2%.
Support, since all my issues (below) have been resolved. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comments
The current citations 2, 4 need a publisher."Using color alone to convey information should not be done" per WP:MOSCOLOUR. Every colour coded landmark should also be accompanied by the symbol listed in the key.
- Done.
National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)s to National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)NHLs in 17 counties. Not sure of the specifics, but the table lists Wilson Dam as being in Lauderdale as well. Which would make it 18 counties not 17.I believe that it is "Port of Mobile" (not port of Mobile) as it is a place name.16th St. Baptist Church: - "was the victim of a bombing". victim usually refers to an animate object. Perhaps "site of a bombing" instead.Drum, USS: - "The USS Drum sank 15 Japanese ships" to "The USS Drum sank fifteen Japanese ships"First Confederate Capitol: link "portico"Yancey, William Lowndes, Law Office: - don't link "building" or "death".
Overall, this a very good piece of writing Altairisfar. Try not to worry about the bickering above. As Dabomb says, the focus here is the content, which is good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of the issues raised by Dabomb87 and Rambo's Revenge, with the exception of the new third paragraph by Doncram. I'll give him a chance to correct these issues before doing it my way. Altairisfartalk 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've revised the 3rd paragraph, trying to address all the issues raised for it. What i was trying to do was provide some context for the NHLs, what they are vs. what they are not, including mentioning the 3 other obvious contenders for most-important-Federally-protected-historic-sites in Alabama, and mentioning that the NHLs are just 3% of all the Federally-somewhat-protected sites in the state. Done for now. doncram (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC) (Non-comprehensive list from someone who knows next to nothing about images):[reply]
File:USS Drum SS-228 in Mobile.jpg needs a real source (is it self-made).
- This one was copied to Commons from here, not sure why it double redirects, corrected.
File:Episcopal Church of the Nativity Huntsville.jpg – Can we have a link to the website?
- The link was at the bottom of the summary, corrected.
File:1861 Davis Inaugural.jpg needs an author, and Wikipedia cannot be the source.
- I have already replaced with a new image.
File:Fort morgan alabama.jpg – Use the commons version instead.
- Replaced with a new image.
File:Sloss_Furnaces_Birmingham.jpg needs an author for attribution.
- Corrected
File:WilliamLowndesYancey.jpg needs its information organized.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one came from the NPS website, but has no attribution there, looking for another image, then will upload. Done.Altairisfartalk 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer either of the two images of the building itself available at the NHL webpage for the building ([9]) to be added, rather than an image of Yancey the person. One of those pics is in the William Lowndes Yancey Law Office article already. (Further, in fact, I'd rather have no image, than just an image of the person, in order to enlist readers to provide a new photo, but that's just my opinion and here 2 pics are readily available.) It is not a problem that the specific author of the photo is not available at the NHL webpage. The problem with certain other photos at NPS photos is that they are specifically credited to a non-public-domain type source. If not specifically credited elsewhere, like these, the photos can be used. This is consistent with NPS webpages copyright statement, it is practice at Commons AFAIK, and it consistent with my own "watchdogging" on NPS photos. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was aware of that image, I'm the uploader. It is specifically credited as a National Historic Landmarks photograph too, which is good, I just didn't like it much. That's why I added the credited engraving instead, and because an engraving was what was already there. If you'd like to change them, feel free. Altairisfartalk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer either of the two images of the building itself available at the NHL webpage for the building ([9]) to be added, rather than an image of Yancey the person. One of those pics is in the William Lowndes Yancey Law Office article already. (Further, in fact, I'd rather have no image, than just an image of the person, in order to enlist readers to provide a new photo, but that's just my opinion and here 2 pics are readily available.) It is not a problem that the specific author of the photo is not available at the NHL webpage. The problem with certain other photos at NPS photos is that they are specifically credited to a non-public-domain type source. If not specifically credited elsewhere, like these, the photos can be used. This is consistent with NPS webpages copyright statement, it is practice at Commons AFAIK, and it consistent with my own "watchdogging" on NPS photos. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, finished with the above issues. We still need a source for the final sentence of the third paragraph. Altairisfartalk 00:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence currently is: "Neither NHL listing nor NPS management are exclusive indicators of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in these Federal programs." Its "there may be..." is deliberately vague. Does it really need a specific reference? It could be footnoted, perhaps that: "There are historic sites such as the Charles Scribner's Sons Building in New York City which have recognized historic standing but whose private owners decline to permit listing on the National Register and hence exclude also from National Historic Landmark consideration." See the "Accompanying nomination correspondence" link in that Scribner's article. I don't know where it appears in NRHP / NHL regulations that owner objections to listing must be, or often are, obeyed, but I know it occurs in practice. Perhaps it appears in what I refer to as the NRHP manual, or in some document in this list of NRHP / NHL publications: [10]. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to have a source, original research is going to be brought up if it doesn't have one. Altairisfartalk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the thought into what is now the last 2 sentences, with a reference to the Title 36 regulations already referenced. The reference documents procedures for private owners to object and directs that if a majority of owners object, a site will not be designated NHL. BTW it is similar for NRHP. In practice (not asserted in article) this means that private sites whose owners oppose NRHP listing and/or NHL designation generally will not be nominated: it would be wasteful to apply scarce State staff time to developing nominations that cannot yield designation. The Scribner example to NRHP listing is one where the owner objection came in very late in the process, after the site was already deemed eligible. Anyhow, I believe there's now no original research present. Done for now, again. doncram (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that, thanks! Altairisfartalk 01:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the thought into what is now the last 2 sentences, with a reference to the Title 36 regulations already referenced. The reference documents procedures for private owners to object and directs that if a majority of owners object, a site will not be designated NHL. BTW it is similar for NRHP. In practice (not asserted in article) this means that private sites whose owners oppose NRHP listing and/or NHL designation generally will not be nominated: it would be wasteful to apply scarce State staff time to developing nominations that cannot yield designation. The Scribner example to NRHP listing is one where the owner objection came in very late in the process, after the site was already deemed eligible. Anyhow, I believe there's now no original research present. Done for now, again. doncram (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to have a source, original research is going to be brought up if it doesn't have one. Altairisfartalk 00:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence currently is: "Neither NHL listing nor NPS management are exclusive indicators of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in these Federal programs." Its "there may be..." is deliberately vague. Does it really need a specific reference? It could be footnoted, perhaps that: "There are historic sites such as the Charles Scribner's Sons Building in New York City which have recognized historic standing but whose private owners decline to permit listing on the National Register and hence exclude also from National Historic Landmark consideration." See the "Accompanying nomination correspondence" link in that Scribner's article. I don't know where it appears in NRHP / NHL regulations that owner objections to listing must be, or often are, obeyed, but I know it occurs in practice. Perhaps it appears in what I refer to as the NRHP manual, or in some document in this list of NRHP / NHL publications: [10]. doncram (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've stricken my earlier opposition, but did not hide my comments because I think that the subsequent discussion, which had broad participation, should not be hidden. I have edited the article myself to fix a few of my concerns with it, but I have a few additional concerns that I imagine the creators would like to have the opportunity to address:
- The first sentence of the lead is nicely written, but the language seems overly flowery and imprecise for an encyclopedia article. It says "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama trace a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age, as well as many points in between," but in fact the landmarks don't "trace" anything (that word implies some sort of a continuum, which is lacking here), and I can't read about "points" in time without being reminded of the Watergate hearings. I also find "sweep" to be overly metaphorical, but I won't quibble with the effort to avoid saying "this is a list." I suggest changing this sentence to "The National Historic Landmarks in Alabama are representations of a broad sweep of history from the precolonial era, through the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Space Age."
- The last sentence of the first paragraph says that "One site in Alabama was designated a National Historic Landmark, but was subsequently removed." I know what this is supposed to mean, but the sentence tells me something different. Clarify that it was the NHL designation (not the site itself) that was removed.
- The first sentence of the second paragraph says that the National Park Service is in charge of the NHL program, but the second sentence says that the Secretary of the Interior is the one who designates landmarks. This could be seriously confusing. To fix this, separate the statements about who is responsible for NHL designations (that is, the NPS, which is in the Department of Interior, runs the program but the official designations are signed by the Secretary of Interior) from statements about the criteria for designation.
- In the third paragraph, the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state" is unsourced -- and I think it is unverifiable. The NPS' FAQ on NHLs says "Many of the most renowned historic properties in the Nation are Landmarks," but that's not the same as saying that the NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in either the nation or any specific state. I suggest deleting the sentence.
- The second sentence of that third paragraph introduces the concept of the National Register of Historic Places, but in a kind of backhanded fashion. For users who are not familiar with NHLs and the NRHP, I think it might be more effective to (1) say that NHLs are included on the NRHP, (2) briefly define the NRHP, and (3) state that NHLs are tiny fraction of the NRHP listings in the state (give the number). The key point to be made in distinguishing NHLs from other NRHP listings (according to this source) seems to be that NHLs are judged to have national significance; it would be useful to make that point (possibly in the previous paragraph).
- Later in that paragraph, there is a statement that "The state holds four historic sites directly protected by the National Park Service". The word "holds" is misleading as it implies state government ownership; substitute a different verb here. Also, it is arguable whether the NPS role for these sites is "protecting" them; the NPS role is more typically described with a word like "managing," and the only protection bestowed on many (but not even all) of these sites is federal ownership. For example, the passage could say "Four historic sites in the state are managed by the National Park Service. One of these, the Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site, is also designated a NHL. The others are Horseshoe Bend National Military Park, Russell Cave National Monument, and Tuskegee Airmen National Historic Site."
- The last sentence of the paragraph ("Thus, NHL listing is not an exclusive indicator of protected sites' importance: there may be other sites of equal or greater national historic value whose historical integrity is protected by private owners who decline to participate in the NHL program") is true in part, but it falsely indicates that objections of private owners are the only reason why a site might not be included. In fact, there are also some potential landmarks are not NHLs because they haven't been evaluated yet, and others are not NHLs because they are owned by federal, state, or local governments (not private owners) that don't want them to be designated. (I can name examples of federally owned properties that have been determined eligible but have not been designated.) Also, the sentence implies that all historic sites are "protected" even if they aren't designated landmarks-- in the U.S., that is utterly incorrect. I suggest simplifying the statement to something like "NHL designation is not an exclusive indicator of a site's importance; for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program."
- The table legend is unnecessarily complicated and possibly confusing. In the context of a list of landmarks, it does not make sense to show "National Register of Historic Places only" as the first entry. That category should be presented as an afterthought, if it is presented at all. (My preference would be to delete it from the table and legend -- it applies to only one site that is not in the main table.) I don't see a need to specify "NRHP and National Historic Landmark," since all NHLs are listed on the NRHP -- that's sort of like saying "Mammal and cat", when "cat" would suffice; just say "National Historic Landmark." For similar reasons, simplify "NRHP, NHL, and National Historic Site" to "NHL and National Historic Site."
--Orlady (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have addressed all of the concerns. I found the suggestions helpful, so I implemented almost all of the them. The only difference was that I left the NRHP reference in the table legend. I think that as long as the colors are used in the tables it will be necessary. Altairisfartalk 07:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits in response to Orlady's comments made the text different, not better, in my view. Now, i don't get the organization of the 3 paragraphs. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeat parts of each other, and it is not clear why/how they are divided.
- I appreciate Orlady's responsiveness in being more specific with suggestions, but I perceive there to be overstatements and unnecessary dismissiveness in Orlady's comments. The most harmful to the writing is Orlady's dismissal of the sentence "The NHLs are among the most historically significant protected sites in the state". The sentence was a topic sentence providing introduction to a 3rd paragraph which fully supported the sentence. Support for both the assertion of relative importance of the NHLs, and the assertion that NHLs are not everything were included. The support was in the form of (a) quotation that the NHLs were sites of exceptional national historic significance; (b) fact that they represented just 3% of the Federally listed historic sites in the state; (c) example of 3 non-NHL National Park Service areas of historic importance that demonstrates not all salient historic sites are NHLs; (d) explanation of another way in which there may be other protected historic sites in the state of high importance (the private sites whose owners declined to participate). The topic sentence was supported by those statements and was not unsourced or unverifiable as Orlady asserted. Removing the topic sentence, and rearranging as was done, leaves the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repetitive and disorganized, in my view.
- I would prefer to return / develop the 3 paragraph text into (para 1) intro / description about the 36 NHLs in AL; (para 2) define / expand about the NHL program (perhaps including differentiation vs. NRHP program here); (para 3) broaden out, putting NHLs in context of other historic sites in AL (quote about exceptionality of the NHL sites, just 3% of the NRHPs, that there are 3 non-NHL NPS areas, and possibility that there are other protected historic sites in the state of high historical importance). I would prefer to bring back the 3rd paragraph's topic sentence and ensure that it is supported. doncram (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the current form is more easily understood and still conveys that these sites are important and protected to some extent. I'm not seeing what you mean about the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs repeating info. The 2nd describes how NHLs are designated and nominated. The 3rd contrasts the differences between NHLs and NRHPs. My feeling about the first sentence was that the reader can draw the conclusion that the NHLs are "among the most historically significant protected sites in the state." But if you can provide a source that states this unequivocally, then we can put it back in. But, perhaps I'm not getting what you really mean? Altairisfartalk 22:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that you acknowledge the stricken topic sentence was supported and/or could be supported by the rest of the paragraph. I don't see the need for a reference for it. There is no rule that every sentence needs a reference, and it is like a lede which summarizes what follows. Ledes don't need to say everything or contain detailed references; those are developed later. I thot the stricken sentence was a short, semi-provocative statement, that gives the reader something to think about (hmm, are these the most important sites? what about other sites?) and then the support for the sentence followed and provided larger context. Currently, the lead sentence of the 3rd paragraph is not a topic sentence.
- What i meant by repetition is that the second paragraph now ends with "Owners may object to the nomination of the property as a NHL. When this is the case the Secretary of the Interior can only designate a site as eligible for designation." and then, separated in the 3rd paragraph, is "...for example, some sites of equal or greater national historic significance may not be designated because their owners have declined to participate in the program." Discussing the owner objection process in 3 sentences is overkill in the current draft. Note, currently the 5 sentences of the 2nd paragraph and the first 3 sentences of the 3rd paragraph do not mention Alabama at all. Those 8 sentences could appear in the NHL article, instead.
- Mentioning the owner objection process would be relevant, however, in supporting an assertion that the NHLs in AL are among the most nationally significant historic sites in the state (but are not guaranteed to be a comprehensive list). In my view, the 1st 2 sentences of the 3rd para could better be merged into 2nd paragraph (then 2nd paragraph is generalities about the NHL program, somewhat boring but perhaps helpful). The stricken topic sentence, added back to start the 3rd paragraph, would transition back to talking about Alabama and would be interesting/relevant to readers. The 3rd paragraph also could/should end more positively, not with the list of non-NHL NPS areas. Perhaps the stricken topic sentence could be used as an ending, summary thought type sentence there, instead. doncram (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I do see what you mean, though I don't agree with all of your points. The brief overviews are helpful to have in a list of this type, even if the National Historic Landmark article was more informative than it now is. The first sentence of the 3rd paragraph is a topic sentence, but maybe not the best. It is more so now that I've removed the somewhat repetitive sentence and broken out the unrelated text about other historic sites. As for the former topic sentence, I just don't believe that we need to expand on that any further. I really think that most readers would easily infer that the NHLs are among the most protected and significant sites in Alabama. Altairisfartalk 00:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Looking at the lead only for now...
- Will not comment on the whole color/scope issue for now, but I hope there will more transperancy for both.
- "There are a total of 36 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs)s in Alabama."-->There are 36 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in Alabama.
- "The state has 67 counties,[2] and there are National Historic Landmarks in 17 of them."-->The state has 67 counties,[2] of which 17 have National Historic Landmarks.
- "The sites are designated by the United States Secretary of the Interior because they are places where events of national historical significance occurred, they are where prominent persons lived or worked, they represent icons of ideals that shaped the nation, they are outstanding examples of design or construction, they are places characterizing a way of life, or they are archeological sites able to yield information." Can we somehow split up this sentence? It is quite a mouthful.
- The third paragraph has identical sentence starts in its first three sentences. Mix it up a little.
- "most significant historic sites protected, to some degree, by the U.S. government. " Why are they the most significant, and what does "to some degree" mean? (If this has already been discussed above, please accept my sincere apologies.
- It was my wording and I agree it should be improved. I wanted to avoid saying the sites were "protected" without qualification, because readers assume that means absolutely protected, but NHLs are sometimes demolished. Perhaps it could be changed to "partially protected by the U.S. government", although an explanatory footnote would still also be helpful. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The NHLs represent an honor roll of these NRHPs." What do you mean by "an honor roll"?
- Again, my wording and better wording would be welcome. I meant to convey, informally, that the NHLs are the higher quality historic sites; there are in fact higher standards shown in the NRHP's manual for NHL sites, the manual should probably be cited. There are no additional tax benefits to private owners for NHL listing, in addition to NRHP listing, though. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "One site, the Tuskegee Institute is both an NHL and also protected by the National Park Service as a National Historic Site."-->One site, the Tuskegee Institute, is an NHL; it is protected by the National Park Service as a National Historic Site.
- Two disambiguation links need fixing.
- Could you add (a) reference(s) to the third paragraph that covers the information?
- Have the images been checked by an independent experienced image reviewer? Sephiroth mentioned it above, but I don't know if that has been done yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone clarify what exactly is wanted in a new image review now? These images have withstood a great amount of review already, including a long discussion regarding a previous image for the carpenter gothic church that led to its image being replaced. Pointer to a well-done image review elsewhere would be helpful. Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that an image review had already been done, could you point me to the discussion about the image? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to suggest that there has been a formal review of all the images in this list-article. I meant that, in general, there has been a lot of scrutiny of NRHP images. I have been one of several "watchdogs" on use of photos from NPS webpages which are usually but not always public domain. I recall the discussion about the previous image for the carpenter gothic church (St. Andrew's Episcopal Church (Prairieville, Alabama)), since been deleted from commons along with the previous image, because it was very agonizing to lose use of a very nice historic photo. It hinged on whether a photo available in the NPS focus system but taken by an Alabama state employee, not a NPS employee, was in the public domain. My perhaps-too-conservative position which prevailed (and which I believe is the current consensus type position at commons now) was that the image was not public, barring a separate release from the state of Alabama, so it was deleted. The current photo is one taken and contributed by Altairisfar himself, which was a nice solution. I just now checked a couple other photos, seeing no problems, although I did make a point to edit the commons description for the J.L.M. Curry House photo to clarify its authorship. I could do my own review of all the photos but that would take a day or two. doncram (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know that an image review had already been done, could you point me to the discussion about the image? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone clarify what exactly is wanted in a new image review now? These images have withstood a great amount of review already, including a long discussion regarding a previous image for the carpenter gothic church that led to its image being replaced. Pointer to a well-done image review elsewhere would be helpful. Thanks. doncram (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) It was too crowded up there, so I am posting them here:
- "Both public and privately owned properties are included." Included in what?
- "All NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), historic properties deemed worthy of preservation by the National Park Service."-->NHLs are also included on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which are historic properties deemed worthy of preservation by the National Park Service.
- Overall, I think you have done a much better job of explaining the differenced bettween NHL and NHRP.
- "One of
onlytwo surviving South Dakota-class battleships, " - "earning nine battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese."-->earning 9 battle stars over 26 engagements with the Japanese. (comparative quantities should be written out the same)
- "It was used for
onlyone year" - "that climbs in a series"-->that ascends in a series
- "
Instead of focusing on bus segregation, it focused on legal and nonviolent direct action against segregated accommodations, transportation, schools and employment discrimination." "Instead of focusing on bus segregation" implies that all Civil Rights efforts in Alabama were directed toward bus desegregation. - "features a unique Italianate style." How is it unique? Can it not be found anywhere in the world?
- "This building is an example of the trend in 19th-century America toward structures combining more than one civic function."-->This building exemplifies the 19th-century American trend toward structures that served multiple civic functions.
- "He was appointed as a Federal District Judge in 1914, where he became recognized as an advocate for judicial reform."-->He was appointed as a Federal District Judge in 1914, and became recognized as an advocate for judicial reform.
- "This Gothic Revival church was built in 1859, and it is considered one of the best examples of Ecclesiastical Gothic architecture in the South." Considered the best by whom? Watch out for these weasel words.
- "Andrew Jackson reestablished a fort here in 1814, following his defeat of the Creek Nation at the Battle of Horseshoe Bend." No comma necessary.
- "One of the few surviving steam-powered sternwheelers in the United States and is one of only two surviving United States Army Corps of Engineers snagboats. "-->One of the few surviving steam-powered sternwheelers in the United States, it is one of two surviving United States Army Corps of Engineers snagboats.
- "Alabama-Tombigbee-Tennessee" Should those hyphens be en dashes?
- "Built in 1964 to conduct mechanical and vibrational tests on the fully assembled Saturn V rocket, major problems capable of causing failure of the vehicle were discovered and corrected here." Comma should be a semicolon.
- "It served as the test vehicle for
all ofthe Saturn support facilities at the Marshall Space Flight Center." - "As a lawyer, populist legislator," Do we really need to link lawyer? Most readers know what they are, and the link detracts from other, more high-value links.
- Sources: You've mixed {{Citation}} with {{Cite web}}. You should only use one of these templates for consistency. I recommend using Cite Web because most of your sources use that template. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I've covered all of the suggestions in this list. If I've missed any others above, let me know. Thanks. Altairisfartalk 19:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:23, 4 January 2009 [11].
List of Houston Astros Opening Day starting pitchers
I believe this list meets the featured list criteria, consistent with List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Kansas City Royals Opening Day starting pitchers, List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting pitchers, and others. Rlendog (talk) 04:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Astros began to play in 1962 under the name Houston Colt .45s (their name was changed to the Astros in 1965 when the Houston Astrodome opened as their home park). - how about instead of under the name replace it with as
- In their first eight seasons, the Colt .45s and Astros used eight different Opening Day starters. In 1970, that steak ended when Larry Dierker made his second Opening Day start. - in similar lists like these, a / is used in between the 2 names the team has used because adding an and makes it seem like it was 2 different teams
- Three different pitchers have made five Opening Day starts apiece - apiece just stands out here, can it be reworded somehow?
- They moved to the Astrodome in 1965. They played 25 Opening Day games in the Astrodome, and their starting pitchers had a record of 12 wins, 8 losses and 5 no decisions in those games. - these two sentences can be merged like After moving to the Astrodome in 1965, they played 25....
- Through 2008 they have played seven Opening Day games there, - comma before they--SRX 16:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- In addition, in the key, the headings should be in bold because the column headings in the table are in bold, which is what the key is representing.--SRX 20:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think this is the case. The other "Opening Day starting pitcher" featured lists, including but not limited to the ones above, do not bold the keys. Has there been a new policy on featured lists to t his effect? I don't necessarily have a problem doing it, but not all the items in the key represent column headings from the table. So the result would be an ugly mishmash of bold and non-bold items. Rlendog (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They should, however, because the key represents what some of the table parameters mean. For example see List of ECW Television Champions, the bold/non-bold doesn't really matter.--SRX 00:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- The key represents what some of the table parameters mean, but bolding versus not bolding does not affect that meaning, or anyone's comprehension of that meaning. The example you provide works with some elements in the key bolded and some not, but that is a simpler key than this one (and my personal opinion is that it would look better all non-bold, but that is just a personal opinion). This key would start with a bold item, then have 4 non-bold items, then 2 bold items, and then 4 non-bold items, which I think would look messy. If there is a FLC standard that items in the key that match table parameters should be bolded I will comply, but I don't think that is the case. Most if not all of the Opening Day starting pitcher featured lists use non-bolded keys. In addition, just among baseball featured lists I checked, at least Cy Young Award and List of Nashville Sounds managers use non-bolded keys. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very good article, just a couple of silly errors:
"their starting pitches" Typo."that steak" Another typo."based Houston, Texas" Word missing.Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
- Houston, Texas--> Houston, Texas
- "No decisions are only awarded to the starting pitcher if the game is won or lost after the starting pitcher has left the game." reference?
- "...(their name was changed to the Astros in 1965 when the Houston Astrodome opened as their home park)..."
- It is way too long, and could be shortened.
- needs reference.
- "Three different pitchers have each made five Opening Day starts:" --> "Three different pitchers have each made five Opening Day starts with the Astros:"
- "in three home ball parks." should be wikilinked on the first appearance, which is on the second paragraph.
- "in the Astrodome" WP:OVERLINK.
- "The Astros have advanced to the World Series once, in 2005. Oswalt was the Opening Day starter that season, and lost to the St. Louis Cardinals."
- First sentence needs reference.
- Read the second sentence carefully. "lost to the St. Louis Cardinals." what is that referring to?
- The article is not wikilinked on the Houston Astros navbox template.
- You could mention which ones have their numbers retired by the Astros. (ie. Dierker, Wilson, Ryan, Scott)
-- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 07:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed all of them, with two exceptions. For the "long sentence" comment in the 3rd bullet, I'm not sure the sentence is too long or that there is a good way to shorten it. It is 163 characters with spaces and 133 characters without spaces, including the parenthetical phrase. I also chose not to add the retired numbers. While that information could be interesting, I am not sure it adds that much in this context, and I think it would add clutter for pitchers who have multiple opening day starts and a retired number. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [12].
Timeline of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season
This is a collaborative effort between myself and Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs), so consider this a co-nom. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 03:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Checklinks run and Advisor.js formatted. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 05:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 05:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - great list
- The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, meaning that information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned upon. - this sentence is confusing, consider revising.
- Got it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tropical Storm Alberto produced significant rainfall and flooding in the Southeastern United States, damaging or destroying over 18,000 homes, and inflicting $750 million (1994 USD) in total damages. - wouldn't it be and instead of or
- Not necessarily; the storm affected 18,000 homes, of which some were destroyed, and others were only damaged. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the second paragraph, I would add the months to the storms which you don't have them for, like Gordon
- Done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent with the publishers, ref #1 and ref #2 are the same publisher but are written differently.--SRX 02:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's standard to spell out an abbreviation in its first occurrence. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well its spelled out in ref#6, the third occurrence, so I think there should be some consistency made, and possibly add (acronym here) to the first occurrence in the publisher.--SRX 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've put the acronym for ref#6. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well its spelled out in ref#6, the third occurrence, so I think there should be some consistency made, and possibly add (acronym here) to the first occurrence in the publisher.--SRX 03:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, it's standard to spell out an abbreviation in its first occurrence. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The timeline also includes information which was not operationally released, which is information from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center." Can we fix the repetition of "information"?
- "Tropical Storm Alberto produced significant rainfall and flooding in the Southeastern United States, damaging or destroying over 18,000 homes, and inflicting $750 million (1994 USD) in
totaldamages." Readers will understand that the amount is the total unless there was reason to believe otherwise. - One dab link needs to be fixed.
- "Hurricane Gordon in November was the most significant storm, causing damages from Costa Rica to North Carolina during its six landfalls." What do you mean by "significant"?
- "approximately "-->about; it's simpler. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've corrected all but the one for Gordon being significant. I'm not sure in which way Julian meant Gordon was significant so I'll leave that to him. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gordon was the longest-lived storm of the season, and it caused the most damage and fatalities. I'll see if I can clarify that. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:59, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [13].
List of Houston Astros managers
-- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 02:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The team joined MLB in 1962 as an expansion team and have won their first NL Championship in 2005.-no need for have
- Fixed -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lanier and Dierker the only managers to have won a Manager of the Year Award with the Astros, winning it in 1986 and 1998 respectively. - add are between Dierker and the
- Fixed -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the new format of this table :)
- Thanks. It's the same as the rest the the List of (MLB team) managers lists that I have done. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 01:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "(1965-1999)" En dash.
- DONE -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The franchise is owned by Drayton McLane, Jr., and Ed Wade is their general manager." No comma necessary.
- Which comma? -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The one after "Jr." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That can't be done because it will sound like this :"The franchise is owned by Drayton McLane, Jr. and Ed Wade is their general manager." It sounds like Ed Wade is also owning the franchise. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 06:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That can't be done because it will sound like this :"The franchise is owned by Drayton McLane, Jr. and Ed Wade is their general manager." It sounds like Ed Wade is also owning the franchise. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- The one after "Jr." Dabomb87 (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Add information about the Astros originally being the Colt .45s.
- Told readers that they were first called the Houston Colt .45s. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 06:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the years in the lead need to be linked with [[YEAR Major League Baseball season]] the first time it is mentioned.
- If you haven't noticed, there was a discussion on WT:MOS saying that years should not be wikilinked like this: [[#### Major League Baseball season|####]]
- Then I guess List of Philadelphia Phillies managers needs some cleaning-up. RyanCross @ 23:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- franchise should be linked to Professional_sports_league_organization#The_system_developed_in_baseball in the first sentence.
- DONE -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leo Durocher is the only Astros manager to have been elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame[5] – Period needed between Fame and [5].
- FIXED -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry Dierker is the only Astros manager to have had his jersey number retired by the Astros. – Most people would be questioning what his number was that was retired.
- DONE -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dierker is also the sixth manager in MLB history to win a division crown in his first season for the Astros in 1997. – Is it possible to link division crown with something?
- Can't find anything that can be wikilinked to "division title" (reworded). -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When did that horrible whitespace appear? Please get rid of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean the white-space between the table and the images? If I don't upright it, the Achievements column will look messed up. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 03:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [14].
List of NBA All-Stars
I have been working on this list back in July, but sort of abandoned it until this week. Now after making some more edits on the list, I believed it fulfills the FL criteria.—Chris! ct 02:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Twelve players—five starters and seven reserves—from each conference are chosen from a pool of 120 players (60 players from each conference with 24 guards, 24 forwards and twelve centers) listed on the ballots by a panel of sport writers and broadcasters. - 1)Link to reserves?
- Could you tell me which article I should link to? I don't see anything relevant in reserve.—Chris! ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well what does a "reserve" mean in the context of Basketball or in the context of the NBA?--SRX 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could you tell me which article I should link to? I don't see anything relevant in reserve.—Chris! ct 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first way is through electronic ballots cast daily by fans on NBA.com or mobile phones. - no need to say way again
- The second way is through paper ballots cast by fans at each NBA arenas and various T-Mobile retail stores. - how about The other is through..
- Coaches are not allowed to vote for their own players and can select two guards, two forwards, one center and two players regardless of positions. - comma before and
- Per
WP:Columns{{reflist}}, not all browsers can handle 4 ref columns.
- Comments: Players should not be sorted into separate sections by number of appearances. All players should be combined into a single sortable table with number of appearances as a sortable column. All headers need to be second-level. Per WP:HEAD, never start an article with a third-level header. Lead and information is great. Reywas92Talk 02:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am not sure if combining all players into a single table will be a good way to illustrate this info. As you can see in this version of the list, a single table is too long and it is hard for readers to look at the number of appearances.—Chris! ct 04:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed headers—Chris! ct 05:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't mean like that example. Every person should have a column next to the name with the number of All-Star games. It could be with the years like "3: 1999-2001". I want to sort all players alphabetically. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "3: 1999-2001", how about make another column for the number of appearances, but not use row spans. Also, I would like to have the "Selections" column sorted out too, so that people can see which player became an All-Star earlier. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "3: 1999-2001", how about make another column for the number of appearances, but not use row spans. Also, I would like to have the "Selections" column sorted out too, so that people can see which player became an All-Star earlier. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- No, I don't mean like that example. Every person should have a column next to the name with the number of All-Star games. It could be with the years like "3: 1999-2001". I want to sort all players alphabetically. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed headers—Chris! ct 05:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I am not sure if combining all players into a single table will be a good way to illustrate this info. As you can see in this version of the list, a single table is too long and it is hard for readers to look at the number of appearances.—Chris! ct 04:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done—Chris! ct 02:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! My only other comments are in the notes. I think that the note that the 1999 game was canceled can be mentioned in the lead rather than as a note of the first sentence. Also, I do not think it is relevant or necessary to mention the two names and their Arabic meanings. Reywas92Talk 18:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I move the note about 1999 game to the lead. As for notes about the names, I mention them because I think it should be made clear to readers that the names shown here are different from their originals. But if you still think they are irrelevant, I will remove them.—Chris! ct 19:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent! My only other comments are in the notes. I think that the note that the 1999 game was canceled can be mentioned in the lead rather than as a note of the first sentence. Also, I do not think it is relevant or necessary to mention the two names and their Arabic meanings. Reywas92Talk 18:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "(60 players from each conference with 24 guards, 24 forwards and twelve centers)" Use em dashes instead of parenthesis, and "twelve"-->12.
- "The starters are
currentlychosen in two ways." - "
eachNBA arenas" - "and various T-Mobile retail stores" Various implies a variety or divesity in these stores, use "some" instead.
- "
Lastly, if a player is unable to participate due to injury, the NBA commissioner will select a replacement." Why "Lastly"? This is not a chronological list (in the lead). - "holds the record for most All-Star Game selection and most All-Star Game played. " Should be pluralized "selections" and "Games".
- "He was selected 19 times and has played
a total ofin 18 games." Why only 18 games (add a footnote if necessary)? - Is it possible to include information about why the All-Stars missed certain games?
- "Shaquille O'Neal holds the record for most All-Star Game selection among active players, with
a total of14 selections." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
- Question: Is it possible to split the list into two, so that the page will load faster? This is because, with 145,184 bytes, some computer may tend to take longer than 30 seconds to load the page.
-
- Why not? You could easily split it to for example, List of NBA All-Stars: A–L and another one with M–Z. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is better to leave it in a single page for now. The page is not long that it have to split into two page immediately.—Chris! ct 01:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The page is not long that it have to split into two page immediately." Are you sure? The page is 145 kilobytes long. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 01:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The reason I don't want to split the list is because it is very hard for readers to look at the number of selections when players are split in two page. I am willing to change if you can come up with a way to shorten the list while illustrating all useful info on a single page, but unfortunately I think that spliting the page according to last name isn't going to work.—Chris! ct 02:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The page is not long that it have to split into two page immediately." Are you sure? The page is 145 kilobytes long. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Why not? You could easily split it to for example, List of NBA All-Stars: A–L and another one with M–Z. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- I think making the columns wider is ridiculous. I suggest you make the lists thinner to add images of the players. One image of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is not enough.
- You just mention that this page is loading a bit slow, adding more pictures will make things worse.—Chris! ct 19:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true. How about add another column for Nationality or Position? -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 22:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true. How about add another column for Nationality or Position? -- signed by SRE.K.A
- You could note that the statistics are correct through the end of the 2008 NBA All-Star Game.
- Instead of noting the column, "Selections", you could add that note to the key.
-- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 07:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You could tell the readers that Jerry West have the most consecutive selections, and that Bob Cousy and John Havlicek are tied for the most consecutive games played.
- Some reader may not know what a "all-star" is. You can get a definition of it and put it on the article, or just rename the article to "List of players selected to play in an NBA All-Star Game", or something similar.
- After some thoughts, the first sentence of the second paragraph pretty much explains this. But if you think it is inadequate, I can move the page.—Chris! ct 02:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should be moved to "List of NBA all-stars" because of the grammar. Also, you should add the definition of an "all-star". The reference is here, which defines, "Sports. a player selected for an all-star team." -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 03:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said, the first sentence of the second paragraph already define what is "all-stars", "players who have been selected for the All-Star Game". As for the grammar issue, I don't anything wrong with the title. But I will ask someone about that.—Chris! ct 19:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also don't see the grammar problem. "All-Stars" is a proper noun, so it should be capitalized. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence does define what an all-star is, but doesn't actually tell the readers directly what the sentence actually defines. I suggest you change, "The following is a list of players who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career.[1]" -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how is all-star a proper noun? It has never been spelled capitalized. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I understand what you are talking about. I linked all-star so that readers can understand the term. I also added "NBA" in the first sentence of the second para to avoid ambiguity and to make absolutely sure that the capitalization of "All-Stars" was correct in that instance. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The sentence still does not tell the readers what the definition is defining. I still suggest you change the sentence to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career.[2]", ot something similar. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 00:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me, but of course with the reference. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 03:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence still does not tell the readers what the definition is defining. I still suggest you change the sentence to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career.[2]", ot something similar. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Also, how is all-star a proper noun? It has never been spelled capitalized. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- The first sentence does define what an all-star is, but doesn't actually tell the readers directly what the sentence actually defines. I suggest you change, "The following is a list of players who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." to "An (A/a)ll-(S/s)tar is a player who have been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career.[1]" -- signed by SRE.K.A
- The article should be moved to "List of NBA all-stars" because of the grammar. Also, you should add the definition of an "all-star". The reference is here, which defines, "Sports. a player selected for an all-star team." -- signed by SRE.K.A
(outdent) Do we really need a reference? If that is the issue, we can say: "For the purposes of this list, an NBA All-Star is a player who has been selected for the All-Star Game at least once in their career." That way we are free from having to justify our calling the players an All-Star. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No references are needed, in my opinion—Chris! ct 03:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that some readers may not know much about basketball, that is why I wanted a reference for the definition of "all-star". As long as all the readers know what you are saying, then its fine. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that some readers may not know much about basketball, that is why I wanted a reference for the definition of "all-star". As long as all the readers know what you are saying, then its fine. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Support Nice work on the list. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 07:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:01, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [15].
List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty
previous FLC (20:02, 8 September 2008)
previous FLC (00:56, 17 December 2008)
Third time's a charm? I hope so, since all of the objections raised in the two previous nominations have been addressed. BomBom (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My concerns have been resolved, and it looks like the image concerns are fixed too. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks excellent. john k (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support though it would be nice if you can expand the lead a bit more.—Chris! ct 02:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Could you try to include a link to dynasty somewhere in the lead?
- The lead gives a background for the topic, but doesn't really summarize the list. Could you maybe mention who had the longest reign, shortest, etc?
- Also in the lead, could you add a couple sentences explaining and maybe what form of government Egypt went to after the monarchy was abolished?
- Could you add a key somewhere that explains the colours?
- Overall, a pretty nice list. -- Scorpion0422 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to dynasty has been added in the lead. A key explaining the colours has also been added. Your second and third concerns will be addressed simultaneously when the lead is expanded. I am currently working on such an expansion and will notify you once I am done with it, so that you review the new text in the lead. Regards. BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has been significantly expanded. It now summarizes the list, providing a brief description of each monarch. It also mentions who had the longest reign and the shortest reign. Information has also been added regarding the form of government Egypt went to after the abolition of the monarchy. Is the lead OK now? BomBom (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to dynasty has been added in the lead. A key explaining the colours has also been added. Your second and third concerns will be addressed simultaneously when the lead is expanded. I am currently working on such an expansion and will notify you once I am done with it, so that you review the new text in the lead. Regards. BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that all links from the Official Website of the Egyptian Presidency show up as dead according to the link checker. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This is quite strange since the links were still working a few days ago. Anyway, there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution would be to include links to archived copies of the pages in question, all of which are available in the Internet Archive. The second solution would be to remove the links to the Presidency website altogether, and replace them with links to the website of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an equally trustworthy source. The latter has profile pages for all the monarchs in question, albeit in Arabic. Which solution do you prefer? BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The likely problem is that the site is temporarily broken. In that case, since this nomination is only three days old, I think we would be better served by waiting. If the links have not fixed themselves by say, January 1, then replace them with the web archive links. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. This is quite strange since the links were still working a few days ago. Anyway, there are two possible solutions to this problem. The first solution would be to include links to archived copies of the pages in question, all of which are available in the Internet Archive. The second solution would be to remove the links to the Presidency website altogether, and replace them with links to the website of the Bibliotheca Alexandrina, an equally trustworthy source. The latter has profile pages for all the monarchs in question, albeit in Arabic. Which solution do you prefer? BomBom (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [16].
Ballon d'Or
The list has gone through a major revamping and I now believe it meets all the criteria necessary to become featured. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Jameboy
- "The "Ballon d'Or", often referred to as the European Footballer of the Year"... isn't the Ballon d'Or the trophy and the European Footballer of the Year the recipient? Should it be changed to the European Footballer of the Year award?
- Footnote A should have a comma after "Despite being born in Argentina"
- In the "by player" section, I don't see the point of regurgitating all the players who have won it just once. Can we just mention that it has been won once "by 34 players" (if my count-up is correct)?
- "over the previous year" - can we clarify whether this is calendar year or football season? I assume the former, but it should be clarified due to many people using "year" and "season" interchangeably. Also I think "during" sounds better than "over".
- "players at European clubs; meaning" comma not semi-colon (or change second half to "this meant that")
- "This changed in 1995 when there was a change" - repetitive phrasing
- "Germany has produced the most winners" - German players or players from German clubs?
Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments I have addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 17:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Toon05 Support
- Done Good job on the article. One think I am wondering about is why the most recent winner of the award (Cristiano Ronaldo, as you undoubtedly know) isn't mentioned in the text, only in the table. It would seem prudent to include the information in the text, as it would undoubtedly be one of the most sought-after pieces of information to readers - they currently need to scroll down to the bottom of the table, or figure out that the table is, in fact sortable. Best (and Merry Christmas), – Toon(talk) 00:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be tempted to disagree there on grounds of recentism: we don't want to be constantly updating the leads of articles or lists to mention the most recent event related to the subject. Ballon d'Or 2008 has all the info on this year's award. --Jameboy (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the article is updated at least every year due to the nature of the award, the list of winners needs to be updated, so really WP:RECENTISM isn't an issue. It makes sense to have the reigning European Footballer of the Year mentioned in the text. – Toon(talk) 14:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Found a few issues with it, in addition to the ones above. Here's a list of them.
- France Football is a magazine, so it should be in italics.
- "with 96 journalists from around the world choosing..." This is a "noun-plus-ing" structure and should be adjusted. Perhaps try a semi-colon and "96 journalists from around the world chose..."
- Replace the comma after "Three men have won the award three times" with a semi-colon.
- "Platini won all of his awards in a row from 1983 to 1985, and is the only player to acheive this feat." I don't believe this is specific enough; of course he's the only person to win three in a row from 1983 to 1985. What's important is that he's the only player to do it, period.
- Another noun-plus-ing: "with five players winning seven awards between them."
- Next sentence: "with seven players winning eight awards whilst (change to while) playing for the club."
- Missed this one. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Alfredo Di Stefano photo doesn't have source and date of publication, both of which are needed to prove its public domain status.
- Reference 7 (Juve legend Sivori dies) is lacking a publisher.
- The Sports Illustrated references should be handled in a similar manner to the ones from The Independent. One SI ref is from Reuters, and the other is from the AP. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After my comments, and those of the other reviewers, were addressed, I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 17:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Only image captions that are complete sentences need full stops (periods) at the end.
- "Originally journalists could only vote for European players at European clubs" Comma after "Originally".
- "meaning that players like Diego Maradona and Pelé were ineligible for the award" Make a footnote that notes which clubs and countries these players play for and are from, respectively.
- "In 1995" Comma after this phrase.
- "The rules were changed again in 2007 with players of every nationality and from any club around the world eligible for the award."-->The rules were changed again in 2007 so that players of any nationality and from any club around the world could be eligible for the award.
- "European based"-->Europe-based.
- "Three men have won the award three times" Add each to the end of this phrase.
- "Platini is the only player to win the award three times in a row"-->Platini is the only player to have won the award three times in a row
- "German players have won the Ballon d'Or the most, five players have won seven awards between them." Make the comma a semicolon.
- "Italian club Juventus has had the most winners, with seven players winning eight awards while playing for the club." Another one of those noun + -ing phrases, try: "Italian club Juventus has had the most winners; seven players have won eight awards while playing for the club. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as RSSSF and UEFA.What makes http://www.laureus.com/ a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look at their article and you'll see hy it's a reliable source, they have a famous award for sports people and are a famous sports organisation. NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jc ajax belle photo 01.jpg Who are the "personnel"?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- replced with image of Kevin Keegan, no idea who "personnel" are. NapHit (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "presented each year" don't need the "each year" part as reader already know the award is awarded annually.
- I think the column, "Country", should be renamed "Nationality" or "Citizenship".
- I think the "By (noun)" sections are ridiculous. Why do you need to have those when the sorting function can easily determine which country, player, or club had the most award winners?
Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
- "..., meaning that players like Diego Maradona and Pelé were ineligible for the award." Why do you need to point out name?
- "Three men..." Does it say that the award can only be awarded to men, and not women?
- I don't think that needs to be made explicit, it is pretty obvious. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you have a reference that only men are allowed to win the award? The word "obvious" relates to WP:Original research. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you have a reference that only men are allowed to win the award? The word "obvious" relates to WP:Original research. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- "Ronaldo became the first Brazilian to win the award in 1997, after non-Europeans were made eligible." Why does this also need to be pointed out?
- What are the years wikilinked to? Tell the readers that by note or by key.
- The years are wikilinked to the relevant year of the award, a note is not needed for that it's just overkill. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that somewhere on WP:MOS, it says not to pipelink years (ie. 1982) That is why you need to tell the readers first about what the years wikilink to. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- That's not what it says. The MOS is rather obsolete on this detail; the latest consensus (i.e. Date Linking RfC) suggests that when articles are piped through single-year links, it is better to be explicit about where the links go so as to not confuse the reader. Most of the basketball and baseball lists use this method, see List of Washington Wizards head coaches as an example. Also, all the years should be linked because the tables are sortable. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that somewhere on WP:MOS, it says not to pipelink years (ie. 1982) That is why you need to tell the readers first about what the years wikilink to. -- signed by SRE.K.A
-- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 07:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the section about Maradona and Pele, I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible - it is not a minor detail IMHO. We could rustle up a large amount of sources to demonstrate this if required. Best, – Toon(talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Toon05 stated, "I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible" This is called original research. According to WP:Original research, it is not allowed. I still believe that pointing out players have no use. For example, why do you need to point out the first Brazilian, but not the first Czech? -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 02:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Toon05 stated, "I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible" This is called original research. According to WP:Original research, it is not allowed. I still believe that pointing out players have no use. For example, why do you need to point out the first Brazilian, but not the first Czech? -- signed by SRE.K.A
- I've addressed all your comments. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the section about Maradona and Pele, I think it's important to highlight that the two players who are almost universally regarded as the best footballers of all time were ineligible - it is not a minor detail IMHO. We could rustle up a large amount of sources to demonstrate this if required. Best, – Toon(talk) 16:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [17].
List of Montreal Canadiens head coaches
-- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 01:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Officially known as Le Club de Hockey Canadien,[1] the Montreal Canadiens (French: Les Canadiens de Montréal) are an Canadian professional ice hockey team based in Montreal, Quebec. - I'm guessing the an is because of the type of English they use, right?
- ...in 1976-77 and 1988-89 respectively. - why not link to the seasons?
- Because wikilinking them will maybe confuse the readers. I really don't know how it is confusing, but if I'm correct, there was a discussion about this on WT:MOS. I don't know where though... -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because wikilinking them will maybe confuse the readers. I really don't know how it is confusing, but if I'm correct, there was a discussion about this on WT:MOS. I don't know where though... -- SRE.K.A
- Dandurand is the only coach to have spent his entire NHL head coaching career with the Canadiens, and have been elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame as a builder. - I thought there were nine that were spent their entire careers with the Canadiens. If you mean that they have spent their entire careers with the Canadiens and to have been elected to the HoF, then maybe adding a too before have might tweak it a bit.
- Dandurand did both: spending his entire NHL head coaching career with the Canadiens and to have been elected into the Hockey Hall of Fame. I removed the comma before and, hope that clears thing up. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the footnotes, instead of having to reference to it over 6 times, use the {{ref}} and {{note}} templates, they work better in this case.
- Didn't I already do that with the {{ref label}} and {{note label}} template? -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Killervogel5
- "The Canadiens are owned by George N. Gillett Jr., former head coach of the Canadiens,"→"Canadiens;"
- I think I did it right... -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though Dick Irvin has coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who has coached for 13 seasons," - keeping "has" in there makes it sound like they are all still coaching. Consider "Though Dick Irvin coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who coached for 13 seasons,"
- Copied your re-phrasing. -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Blake also has the most Stanley Cup championships"→"has won"
- DONE -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in 1976-77 and 1988-89 respectively"→use en-dashes in year ranges.
- DONE -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 22:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The team's first head coach was Newsy Lalonde, who has coached the Canadiens for eight NHL seasons, in two stints." - remove "has" again. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE -- SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24[c] 23:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
- Support: Had a few issues with the grammar in the prose and captions, but I went through and did a minor grammar copyedit and it looks good to go! – Nurmsook! talk... 08:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've got to bring up the inevitable discussion about when to start the Canadiens coaching list, whether 1909 or 1917. Now in the lead, it makes several mentions to the team being founded in 1909, including winning the 1916 Stanley Cup. However, the list only includes the Canadiens from 1917, when they joined the NHL. I would go ahead and include the NHA coaches in this list. After all, they are included in the NHL Record Book for the Canadiens, the only team that includes pre-NHL anything. Information is available in regards to the coaches, and it was a vital part of the team's history, and should be included. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know about actually putting the NHA seasons because of the lack of sources for the playoffs. The only source I know that covers the regular season is [18]. The playoffs will be hard to find. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Also, you're welcome for the barnstar! -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment While I'll be busy the next few days due to the time of year, I probably have enough references to cover the NHA Canadiens' coaches. It's probably not going to be in time for the nomination, but so be it. And thanks for the award, I appreciated it.
- One more comment. The NHL Record Book, as well as the Montreal Canadiens article, lists Babe Siebert as a coach, even though he died before coaching a game. Since he was officially appointed as a coach, and is recognised as such, he should be included, with a note mentioning he drowned prior to coaching a game, similar to what the Record Book does. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for noticing that. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 01:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for noticing that. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Also, you're welcome for the barnstar! -- signed by SRE.K.A
Comments:
- I went ahead and have figured out the coaching record of the NHL Canadiens. I'll go and add them in the next few days, after finding references for it. However this leads to something. In the NHA and early NHL, the playoffs were a total goals series, not the best of format used now. A note should probably be made to that degree for coaches of that era, as it makes a huge difference.
- It is a difference, but it won't effect the list. I already knew that the playoffs system were by goals before the 1930s. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 03:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the subject of NHA coaches, the issue of how to add them to the list comes up. Now I would personally say have a running total of all coaches, NHA and NHL, then have seperate running totals for the NHA and NHL coaches. For example, Guy Carbonneau is the 25th coach of the Canadiens in the NHL, but the 28th total coach of the team. Maybe break up Newsy Lalonde's totals, since he coached in both the NHA and NHL. Again, I'll go and add it myself within a few days, to give an idea of what I'm tryig to convey.
- The total will be including both the NHA and the NHL, which is of course 28 according to your references.
- Support As the NHA totals are not of dire importance, and it's stated as not being part of the article, it can wait until proper references can be obtained. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job, almost all the issues were pointed out by reviewers (and subsequently addressed) before I could get to this article! Dabomb87 (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is one thing, could you add the ISBN for the book?Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although I have one minor concern: Is the asterisk, dagger, and double dagger really necessary in the key? The list is already color coded, the extra symbols just look redundant. Tavix (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:MOS, yes. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 07:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent list. I do have two comments, but neither is significant enough to withold support. In the sentence that begins "Alhough Dick Irvin coached the team for 15 seasons, Toe Blake, who coached two less seasons," should "two less seasons" actually read "two fewer seasons"? I'm actually not sure of the correct grammar myself here, or if maybe both are fine. Also, I would prefer to see a section showing the overall Canadiens coaching records of coaches with multiple stints (e.g., List of San Francisco Giants managers), but I don't think that is required to attain FL status. Rlendog (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the sentence. Also, the readers can easily sort the name column and then add the numbers up if some managers have multiple stints, so it wouldn't really be necessary. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:02, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [20].
List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations
This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film No Country for Old Men. It is thorougly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks fine to me. The JPStalk to me 21:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Comment: I have not been involved in this article prior to nomination, but have helped out since. Any opinions expressed here are completely neutral. The JPStalk to me 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way that you could make the list more in the format of List of Carnivàle awards and nominations? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport - prose checks out fine, as does the rest of the list.but I agree with Dabomb, this format serves no real intention but to make it look more appealing. It should be converted to the format of other FL's, such as the one Dabomb pointed out above.--SRX 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Response - I looked at the few awards focused lists and cannot see a comparative example. I don't think they are comparative. In fact, there are no comparative examples in featured lists at this time, although it is likely that as some changes from projects like WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR are occurring, it may lead to more. One of the changes that is about to occur in WP:FILMS is that the use of the pink/green nominated/win templates won't be supported, while tabling of awards will be, using a similiar format to what is presented here. To my knowledge, this may be the first list of its kind to be considered and I'm not altogether sure that the same focus for television award lists should be applied to a film awards list. They spring from different projects with different focus.
Carnivàle is a television series, as are all the other featured lists for individual program awards, the production of which extended over a period of time, yielding multiple nominations of the same award over time. I'd have to ask how a division of awards for a one time production would be better served by breaking it down into a table for each award. Even breaking it down into acting/technical awards would complicate it unnecessarily, since the majority of awards over these categories would create cross-content (acting, writing, editing, etc. are awarded from the same organizations). There is nothing in the FL criteria that compels a breakdown into multiple tables, and criteria says specifically: Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour. So how is making it visually appealing not an intention?
Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- There is a closing parentheses in the third paragraph of the Lede, but no opening one.
- done
- The fourth "paragraph" is just a single sentence. Can it be merged into one of the other paras?
- done
- Please have the use of the poster checked by an image reviewer. I'm not sure it qualifies as fair use in this article because it bears no relation to the awards it won
- It was removed but further search will be conducted to try and find an acceptable use image of perhaps the Coens accepting one of the awards
- Is there an article for DGA Awards in the Lede? All the other awards are wikilinked
- done
- What does "collectively as Roderick Jaynes" mean?
- done clarified and cited
- Why does the table use small writing? What effect does regular sized text have?
- Since there is the L2 header, "Awards and nominations", why repeat it as another header in the table?
- Just a table style and the need/desire for enough sub-headings for the TOC
- I'm happy for the format of the table to be used, but simply saying that WP:FILMS and WP:ACTOR are going in this direction may not be enough. Do you have links to talk page discussions?
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#Discussion, which ratified (for lack of a better term) the style as well as the smaller text, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Possible table format, which is progressing toward this format with no dissenting opinions on the style. It's slowed a bit because of the holidays, but Erik is developing the guidelines.
- Same for the use of {{won}} {{nominated}}. Please provide a link to the discussion where their use is discouraged.
- This is included in the WP:FILMS discussion above.
- I think some of the External links could be trimmed. This isn't a Canadian movie, so the official Canadian site could go. Including it is rather arbitrary. Why not the British, German, or Russian official sites? Get rid of the main imdb link, too. This article is about the awards only, so the imdb award page is good enough.
- done
- References need formatting correctly. Website names should not be itallicised; only titles of books, magazines and newspapers. Terms such as Inc should be removed, and things such as org, .com etc, as in "goldenglobes.org", "GoldenGlobes.org", "BAFTA.org", "theage.com.au" should be recast as the actual names: Golden Globes, BAFTA, The Age. Please wikilink to articles of publishers and publications where available.
- done Note: Some of the references are from the website of the organizations that gave the awards. Since the awards are linked in the table itself, should they also be linked in the references, or would that be overlinking? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?
- done
That's all I have for now. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 23:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the image qualifies as fair use for the reasons Matthew says. I've removed it. The JPStalk to me 00:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is using mdash appropriate for the tables? MOS:DASH does not seem to permit this kind of usage. Maybe use something else or leave it blank? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added those after the (last) point above - "The empty cells may appear to some people as if information is missing. Could an em- or en-dash be used to show that there is no missing info?" Neither mdash or ndash specifically endorses this, but I've seen dashes used in other FL tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "No Country for Old Men is a 2007 American film that was a multiple award winner in categories ranging from Best Picture" "ranging"-->that ranged.
- "were multiple nominees in Best Director, Best Editing (under the pseudonym of Roderick Jaynes[1]), and Best Adapted Screenplay."-->were nominated for the Best Director, Best Editing (under the pseudonym of Roderick Jaynes), and Best Adapted Screenplay awards.
- "The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, winning four, including Best Picture,[2] four Golden Globe Awards, winning two at the 65th Golden Globe Awards." The logical flow is thrown off by the commas. Try: "The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, winning four, including Best Picture; it was nominated for four Golden Globe Awards, winning two at the 65th Golden Globe Awards."
Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reworded, although I didn't use the semi-colon. It's a personal dislike.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out lesser-known abbreviations such as BAFTA.What makes the following sites reliable sources?Reference 6 needs a publication date.Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. BAFTA spelled out and ref date included. Chlotrudis is the source for its own awards, the Boston Society Film Critics Award was given its own source and the Hollywood Reporter article reprinted on Backstage was replaced with the original publisher.
Working on the other source.Alternative Film Guide references replaced with refs either from Variety or other pertinent sources. I think that addresses all concerns raised. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support an excellent-looking list. Only one issue, which I am not sure is major... since there is no date auto-formatting anymore, would it be better to rewrite the ISO formatting of the dates into American date formatting? Not a deal-breaker, but I tend to fix up the dates like here. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the dates used are in the references, unless I've badly overlooked one in the prose. The template examples don't indicate that is required, one uses the "2008-12-29" style. If it's an issue, I'd be glad to change it, but it would help to see a guideline that indicates it. And thanks :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Content is fine, but I have some concerns over the style which echo comments made above.
- Why use an infobox instead of a normal thumbnail for what is essentially an image and a caption? I believe the infobox is intended for articles about actual awards, not lists of awards such as this.
- Why the "Awards and nominations" header in the table? It's redundant to the section header and serves no further purpose, so it could be removed with no detriment to the table or article.
- Would "Recipient" or "Nominee" make a better column heading than "Name"?
- What is the justification for using smaller text? It's not as if space is at a real premium here, so normal sized text would do just fine. While this doesn't make a huge difference to me using IE, for other users on different browsers (such as Firefox) the smaller text size will be quite noticeable. I don't think that this smaller text size is entirely appropriate for the main body of an article.
- I'm not sold on the visual styling of this table as opposed to a standard wikitable (as seen in List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, for example). The colours I can take or leave, but the grid lines are far less visible making the table a little harder to read. PC78 (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - Most of these comments actually don't echo comments from above. If the infobox is an issue, it can be replaced, I was looking for something a little more visually appealing than just a thumb image. The comment about "Awards and nominations" was made because originally the subtitle also said that, so it is no longer redundant to the subtitle. Since the category called "Names" covers both recipients and nominees, which would you suggest be used that would not ignore the other? As for the table style comments, you didn't raise opposition to this at the discussion for the table styling, so why are you raising it here now? This was created on Firefox and the font size is not a readability issue, it is a stylistic choice. The grid lines are the same color on this table as the grid lines on the List of Carnivàle awards and nominations, so on that, I don't see the point you're making. As I noted above, the Carnivàle list is for a television series with a (then) ongoing series of nominations over time, while this is static. Both of the reviewers above withdrew their concerns regarding this list being like that one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, some of these points were raised above which you yourself have just acknowledged (I never meant all of them). However, I remain unsatisfied by your comments.
- Infobox: This isn't really a major issue, though it does seem like you're using one for the sake of it. If the article can have an infobox with actual info in it then great, but if not then a thumbnail should suffice. I don't think it does anything for the "visual appeal" of the article.
- "Awards and nominations" heading in the table: Of course this is still redundant, a rewording of the section header doesn't change that. You only need one heading for the table, not two that say essentially the same thing. My point above stands.
- "Recipient" or "Nominee": Neither of these terms are exclusive. However, this was merely a suggestion which you may take or leave.
- Table style: In the discussion we had at WT:FILM (which trailed off without any definitive conclusion) I said at several points that I preferred the default styling of "class=wikitable" and that I didn't see any reason to employ the syling which you have here. Regarding the text size, of course this is a stylistic choice but it nevertheless has an effect on readability. The smaller text adds nothing obvious to the article besides the rather dubious sense that it is more visually appealing, and I maintain my position that such reduced text it inappropriate for the main body of an article such as this. My point about the grid lines being less visible should be quite obvious; the lines may be the same colour, but the background colour of the table is darker, hence they sand out less. But my primary concern here is with regard to the text size. PC78 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't my view that it trailed off without conclusion. It was left off at attempting to develop specific guidelines. You are raising objections here to my FL review much stronger than you bothered to object on WP:FILMS, with one comment leading at one point to the comment "Well, PC78 is not a fan of it, apparently." You said you preferred the default style, but I don't see that anyone else enthusiastically endorsed your comment. Finally, when I look at the table here, and the one on the Carnivale list, I see the same background color. When I removed the background color from this one, then it looked different. You also said that the List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors list "is essentially the same as how [you] set up awards tables". When I compare that, it also has the similar background color. You also objected to the awards table used on Mulholland Drive (film), which uses even smaller text and definitively distinct background color, but that is a featured article. I'm at a bit of a loss for a response here beyond this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, some of these points were raised above which you yourself have just acknowledged (I never meant all of them). However, I remain unsatisfied by your comments.
- I did change the text size to a larger set, but just to reiterate, I see no difference in table backgrounds between this and the Little Mis Sunshine and Carnivale lists. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, it does at least alleviate my primary concern. If I am raising my objections much stronger here than in the previous discussion, it is because I felt that discussion was more to establish a basic layout for such tables rather than the more specific styling we are discussing here. I don't recall any "enthusiastic endorsment" for your preffered style either; I don't believe it was commented on much one way or the other. To give you some comparative examples, all other film-related featured lists use bog standard tables without any such styling that you are using here; certainly none of them use anything other than full size text. A final word about the background/gridline colours: if you truly see no difference beween this list and (for example) List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors then I'm inclined to think that this is another browser issue. To me the lines on your list stand out far less, and while it isn't a major issue here, in some such lists this does IMHO affect readability. Anyway, it's late so I'll have another look at this tomorrow before I withraw my opposition. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It must be a browser issue, because I truly see no difference in the gridlines. On this list, there is a darker gridline between the major awards (Academy, BAFTA, etc.) but if I recall, it didn't appear that way to you previously, although others didn't say that. I looked at the table on Christmas day from a computer using Internet Explorer and don't recall a line problem there, but then she had her computer set up oddly anyway. On my computer, the background of the tables on all three lists we've mentioned are the same color as the background in the Wikipedia styling around the outside of the articles. As an aside note, in the near future, organizations will begin to release updated lists of top films, and I suspect that No Country will be included on some of those. If that happens, I would think that a secondary table would be developed to include those top film lists, much as the Carnivale list does now. To go back to the Mullholland Drive (film) FA, I see less line distinction on the recipient/nominees column than on this one. After looking at that, I did change the "Names" column to "Recipients and nominees" on this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a few minor issues that will need resolving. There are two blank entries in the "Outcome" column (San Diego & Vancouver awards), and ref #50 is missing a retrieval date. Also (and this one isn't a deal breaker), all of the external links except the IMDb one are just generic links for the film, which seem better left to the main film article. Are these really necessary? PC78 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how the blanks happened, but apparently no one noticed that before and were accidental absent spaces. Those are fixed as is the retrieval date, which was a misplaced |. I thought the Box Office Mojo and critic pages were interesting, but they weren't essential, so I removed those, but left the IMDB awards page and the official site link. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a few minor issues that will need resolving. There are two blank entries in the "Outcome" column (San Diego & Vancouver awards), and ref #50 is missing a retrieval date. Also (and this one isn't a deal breaker), all of the external links except the IMDb one are just generic links for the film, which seem better left to the main film article. Are these really necessary? PC78 (talk) 17:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It must be a browser issue, because I truly see no difference in the gridlines. On this list, there is a darker gridline between the major awards (Academy, BAFTA, etc.) but if I recall, it didn't appear that way to you previously, although others didn't say that. I looked at the table on Christmas day from a computer using Internet Explorer and don't recall a line problem there, but then she had her computer set up oddly anyway. On my computer, the background of the tables on all three lists we've mentioned are the same color as the background in the Wikipedia styling around the outside of the articles. As an aside note, in the near future, organizations will begin to release updated lists of top films, and I suspect that No Country will be included on some of those. If that happens, I would think that a secondary table would be developed to include those top film lists, much as the Carnivale list does now. To go back to the Mullholland Drive (film) FA, I see less line distinction on the recipient/nominees column than on this one. After looking at that, I did change the "Names" column to "Recipients and nominees" on this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, it does at least alleviate my primary concern. If I am raising my objections much stronger here than in the previous discussion, it is because I felt that discussion was more to establish a basic layout for such tables rather than the more specific styling we are discussing here. I don't recall any "enthusiastic endorsment" for your preffered style either; I don't believe it was commented on much one way or the other. To give you some comparative examples, all other film-related featured lists use bog standard tables without any such styling that you are using here; certainly none of them use anything other than full size text. A final word about the background/gridline colours: if you truly see no difference beween this list and (for example) List of Little Miss Sunshine awards and honors then I'm inclined to think that this is another browser issue. To me the lines on your list stand out far less, and while it isn't a major issue here, in some such lists this does IMHO affect readability. Anyway, it's late so I'll have another look at this tomorrow before I withraw my opposition. PC78 (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is well written, comprehensive and fully referenced, and that's what's really important here, though I retain a few misgivings over the style issues discussed above. I have, however, made the following changes:
- Replaced the infobox with a thumnail per my comments above. Other film-related FLs such as List of Japanese submissions for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film look just fine with a thumbnail, and there's no reason why this article should be any different. I've also added a bit of context to the caption.
- Removed the heading from the table and renamed the section heading accordingly. Again, I still don't see any good reason to have two headings, and I'm not seeing it in other film-related FLs. I could understand if the table was split into two or more sections, but that isn't the case here.
By all means feel free to revert if you feel strongly enough about either of these changes, though I would ask that you state your reasons here. My support stands regardless. PC78 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. I am trying to think of something to do with the heading in order to retain the blue, which I think gives the page a bit of needed color. Perhaps adding a separate section with top ten lists as they occur? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [21].
List of Governors of Indiana
User:Golbez, User:Charles Edward, and I have collaborated on bringing this list up to FL quality. It is based on other Governor FLs, and I believe it is finally ready to be promoted. Reywas92Talk 17:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will co-nominate this article since I have also spent considerable time on it and have access the book sources that were used and a fairly extensive knowledge of Indiana history :) Charles Edward (Talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I co-nominate with but reservations; I'm unhappy with the 'days' column and the party chart at the top. I think the days column is a bit too much (It gives a different view of the date data without really adding any information, IMO, that isn't readily visible with the more abstract terms column; such information, since it requires constant tending, should be in its own list IMO), and the party table gives undue weight to people who were elected once over those who were re-elected, and doesn't really enhance one's knowledge of the subject. Furthermore, it's simply counting certain rows in the table, so it's not new information at all. I'm also unsure about the terms, adding parts of a term together with +, etc, as I think it complicates what is already not an entirely intuitive column; but others would disagree, saying it simplifies it. To each his own. :) --Golbez (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do get your point about the party table. I don't understand why the days would need constant tending. I added a template that automatically updates the current governor. It's nice to be able to sort them by length of time in office; that can't be done with terms. For Morton's terms, it shows how he only served one full term with some on both sides rather than two terms when added. Reywas92Talk 15:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that, I'm still used to the old days. :P As for the "served part a term, then was elected, then served part a term" problem, I brought up the Clinton/Tucker/Huckabee part of the Arkansas table. It's not great, but I still think it's better than all the addition. --Golbez (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, with the governor's term commencing on the second Monday in the January following the election."-->The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; the governor's term commences on the second Monday in the January following the election.
- That doesn't sound right.
- Whoops, forgot to add an "s". My issues was with the with + -ing sentence structure, which is awkward and ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still not so sure about the semicolon here. I'll try to think of something else. Reywas92Talk 03:42, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can find no source against this and a grammar expert said it was acceptable. The constistution specifies the date, so a semicolon splitting the clauses doesn't work, and nothing else seems to be parallel. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. How's "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years and set the commencement of the governor's term on the second Monday in the January following the election."? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's better, but the sentence is a bit winding. Give readers a break with the semicolon: ""The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years, and it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election."? The semicolon is a too abrupt splitting of clauses that go together. Reywas92Talk 18:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's better, but the sentence is a bit winding. Give readers a break with the semicolon: ""The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years; it set the commencement of the governor's term to be the second Monday in the January after the election." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. How's "The second and current constitution of 1851 lengthened terms to four years and set the commencement of the governor's term on the second Monday in the January following the election."? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises#A common problem—noun plus -ing. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, forgot to add an "s". My issues was with the with + -ing sentence structure, which is awkward and ungrammatical. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"the only instance of this is when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks."-->this has happened once, when James B. Ray succeeded William Hendricks.
- Done
"Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to serve non-consecutive terms. "-->Isaac P. Gray and Henry F. Schricker are the only governors to have served non-consecutive terms.
- Done
"The longest-serving state governors are Otis R. Bowen, and Evan Bayh" Comma not necessary. Should it not be "were", since this happened in the past (I assume)?
- Previously it said "Shricker, Bowen, and Bayh." I must have forgotten to remove the comma when removing the incorrect Schricker; Done. No, they still are the longest-serving.
"who served only two days"
- Done
"The most recently-serving governor"-->The most recently serving governor...
- No, I think the hyphen is correct. "Recently-serving" is one phrase. Think about "the recently-servingest governor," not "the recentlyest serving governor."
- See MOS, -ly adjectives should not have hyphens following them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HYPHEN: "A hyphen is not used after a standard -ly adverb...unless part of a larger compound...Some words ending in -ly function as both adverbs and adjectives," which this is. The example "a friendly-looking driver" would become "the most friendly-looking driver." Reywas92Talk 03:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See MOS, -ly adjectives should not have hyphens following them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use em dashes in the empty cells in the table.
- In this case I don't think it's really necessary; it's clutter and the other FLs don't have it either.
Add a white color (for independents) to the legend.
- Done
Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Images[reply]
File:William H. Harrison.jpg needs a proper source and author.
- I'm not experienced in image tagging, but it says it was by Rembrandt Peale and is now in public domain.
File:VPthomasrmarshall.JPG same.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I just replaced it with another pic of him, File:Thomas Marshall, bain photo portrait, circa 1912.jpg.
Sources
Ref 14 (http://www.allbusiness.com/ should not have its ref title in bold caps. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
- Done. It was actually from Indiana Business Magazine and hosted on Allbusiness.com.
On the citations from the Indiana government website, use "State of Indiana" as the publisher instead of IN.gov.
I think this article is ready for featured status World tcs 20:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kensplanet
It is recommended that you have atleast one map of Indiana at least for people outside the US.KensplanetTC 09:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Reywas92Talk 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree strongly with this suggestion; should we include a map of every area that we have a list of executives for? A map of Nepal for its kings? A map of Bavaria for its list of minister-presidents? I think the link to the location is 100% sufficient to find out just where it is. It adds no real information for a list of governors. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, there is no need for it here when there is a link. The important thing is that readers know that Indiana is a state in the US; its location in the country itself is not important enough for this article to warrant adding an extra image. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought the same, but I added it because of his suggestion. It is now removed. The capitol photo's okay though, right? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree: It need not be a recent map of Indiana. Maybe a map of the 1800s will work. KensplanetTC 05:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought the same, but I added it because of his suggestion. It is now removed. The capitol photo's okay though, right? Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, there is no need for it here when there is a link. The important thing is that readers know that Indiana is a state in the US; its location in the country itself is not important enough for this article to warrant adding an extra image. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree strongly with this suggestion; should we include a map of every area that we have a list of executives for? A map of Nepal for its kings? A map of Bavaria for its list of minister-presidents? I think the link to the location is 100% sufficient to find out just where it is. It adds no real information for a list of governors. --Golbez (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by the Days in Office in each Table? How did you consider this. Are they exact?KensplanetTC 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are exact. It is the number of days that passed from taking office to leaving office, exclusive.
- What is Gubernatorial term? KensplanetTC 17:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just referring back to the years he was governor. Reywas92Talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great work! HoosierStateTalk 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [22].
NBA All-Star Weekend Three-Point Shootout
Another NBA-related list. Comments welcomed.—Chris! ct 00:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose from Killervogel5
- Violates WP:RS, specifically the use of third-party source. Every reference except one is to the league's official website, not to an independent source.
- "No players have ever achieved the perfect score of 30."→"No player has..."
- Three point arc needs a wikilink.
- On my monitor, there are references for statements breaking over lines, which means that there may be a space between them, I believe. "television instant replay system.[2][4]"
- The 1998-99 season should be sorted so that it ends up at the bottom when the total points are sorted (right now it sorts as higher than 25 points). This can be rectified by sorting the m-dash as negative 1.
- Note B should be a complete sentence.
- Neither navbox has a direct link to this article. Add links or remove the navboxes.
I will reconsider an oppose only if third-party sources can be found. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every point is addressed except the first one. I am not sure if it is actionable since there aren't many independent sources out there about this subject. But, I will try to research more and see if I can improve it further. Also, I think it is unfair to oppose this nomination based solely on the fact that most of references used are from the league's official website. But that is just my opinion, I guess.—Chris! ct 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am still wary about the high level of league-dependent sources but I support. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- In this contest, participants attempt to shoot as many three-point field goals as possible from the five positions behind the three-point arc - remove the from the five positions
- In cases of tie, additional rounds are played to determine the winner. - how about In the case of a tie...
- In the lead, the last paragraph, it should be stated who was the first winner, and the most recent winner.--SRX 20:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments -
- Move reference 1 after the parenthesis in the first sentence.
- The Three-point Shootout is an National Basketball Association contest...". Typo.
- Move the first use of reference 2 so it can cover the "money ball" part.
- "Three players with the top scores advance to the finals." I suggest adding "The" to start this sentence.
- "which was not made in the same round as the 25 points" Perhaps try "which was not made in his 25-point round"
- 2007–08 NBA season should be 2007–08 seasons.
- "Seasons" with an "s" seems incorrect —Chris! ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It now reads "who won the contest in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 season". I take it that season should be plural, as it represents both of Kapono's victories. Alternately, season could just be removed. Either way, I don't think it looks right as is. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Seasons" with an "s" seems incorrect —Chris! ct 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Photo caption: "Larry Bird has won this contest three consecutive times" implies that he is the current champion. Removing the has should be good enough to fix it.
- Perhaps make clear that Stojakovic's two point totals came in the tie-breakers? It was a little confusing to me at first.
- There's room for one more photo on the right. I first thought to ask for a photo of Peja, but the one free one is blurry and not the best choice. Ray Allen has a couple of good free pictures; one of these would be nice to have.
- Records: Why are the refs in two columns out of order? They are currently both [8][7][1]. Usually, citations should be put in numerical order.
Support - After the fixes above, I think this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Since then, however, six players typically take part in the contest." Why only "typically"?
- "Hodges and Kapono are tied for the scoring record with 25 points. No player has ever achieved the perfect score of 30." If the scoring record is 25, then is it not understood that the perfect score has not been attained?
- In the key: The "Player (X)" and "Team (X)" should be changed to "Player (#)" and "Team (#)".
- Center the em dashes in the table.
- "Denotes the number of times the team has won" The teams can't win, try "Denotes the number of times a player from this team has won". Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "NBA All-Star Weekend Three-point Shootout" Why is "point" not capitalized ? All your other changes look good. I tweaked that one sentence a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
- In the brackets on the first sentence, "also named the" --> "officially named the", since that is the official name.
- "—one on each baseline..." there are two on each baseline, not one.
- No, one shot on each baseline and there are two baselines, which mean there are two shot total.—Chris! ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...have both won..." --> "...have each won..."
- "...have won..." --> "...have each won..."
- The whole third paragraph needs a general reference to be cited at the end of the paragraph.
- This is based on the referenced list below and thus does not need a reference. Everything else done.—Chris! ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think that readers may think that the third paragraph does not have a reference, that's all. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 21:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think that readers may think that the third paragraph does not have a reference, that's all. -- signed by SRE.K.A
-- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 07:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...who won the contest in the 2006–07 and 2007–08 seasons..." Aren't they in the 2007 NBA All-Star Game and the 2008 NBA All-Star Game?
- No. This contest is part of NBA All-Star Weekend, but not the NBA All-Star Game itself.—Chris! ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it's in the All-Star Game, wikilink all the years to the All-Star Game.
- Note that the column, "Season", that each year is linked to an article about that particular NBA All-Star Game.
- See above.—Chris! ct 20:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at 2008 NBA All-Star Game, you will see that it includes the events in the All-Star Weekend. Maybe you should wikilink all the years to the respective All-Star Game. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 11:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I still don't think this is a good idea. Keep in mind that this contest started in 1986, so if I link to 2008, I must also link to 1986. Now look at 1986 NBA All-Star Game, it has no info on events in the All-Star Weekend. And I don't like how some links in the list are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps a discussion is needed on whether events in the All-Star Weekend should be in the All-Star Game article or not.—Chris! ct 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I get what you mean. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I get what you mean. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- I still don't think this is a good idea. Keep in mind that this contest started in 1986, so if I link to 2008, I must also link to 1986. Now look at 1986 NBA All-Star Game, it has no info on events in the All-Star Weekend. And I don't like how some links in the list are irrelevant to the topic. Perhaps a discussion is needed on whether events in the All-Star Weekend should be in the All-Star Game article or not.—Chris! ct 19:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at 2008 NBA All-Star Game, you will see that it includes the events in the All-Star Weekend. Maybe you should wikilink all the years to the respective All-Star Game. -- signed by SRE.K.A
Support -- signed by SRE.K.A[reply]nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 01:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- In this contest, participants attempt to shoot as many three-point field goals as possible from five positions behind the three-point arc—one on each baseline, one at the top of the arc as well as two halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc. Aren't the two points "halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc" commonly called the wings?
- That's not the real name for the two points halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc though. It is just a common saying. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Well, I'm just looking for a way to reduce the wordage. I don't know if there are "official" names for any parts of the basketball court. FWIW, this source calls those spots the wings. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as it has a reliable source, and it has to be true, so I guess Chris should add it on. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 03:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- From the source, it states, "each corner, both wings and the top of the key [should be arc]." I think this version is better than "one on each baseline, one at the top of the arc as well as two halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc." -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I agree with you guys that this version is better, but we have to assume readers don't understand what we are talking about. So perhaps the best way is to combine the two.—Chris! ct 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job on combing. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Unfortunately, I think the sentence still needs some work. If you try parsing it, you'll see that the grammar is a bit sloppy. For example, what does "two" refer to in "two on the baseline"? There's no clear antecedent. (I think I know what it's supposed to refer to, but we shouldn't make readers stumble.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you please reword the sentence for me? Thanks—Chris! ct 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm struggling to find a way to make the sentence clear to non-basketball fans without being too wordy. I tried to make things very simple- I just said that a player begins at one corner, and works his way around the arc. If someone wants to add more detail, they can take a stab at it. (It might not be a bad idea to include a simple diagram of the positions from which the player shoots. Anyone good with graphics?) Zagalejo^^^ 23:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then can you please reword the sentence for me? Thanks—Chris! ct 05:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I think the sentence still needs some work. If you try parsing it, you'll see that the grammar is a bit sloppy. For example, what does "two" refer to in "two on the baseline"? There's no clear antecedent. (I think I know what it's supposed to refer to, but we shouldn't make readers stumble.) Zagalejo^^^ 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice job on combing. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- I agree with you guys that this version is better, but we have to assume readers don't understand what we are talking about. So perhaps the best way is to combine the two.—Chris! ct 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From the source, it states, "each corner, both wings and the top of the key [should be arc]." I think this version is better than "one on each baseline, one at the top of the arc as well as two halfway between the two baselines and the top of the arc." -- signed by SRE.K.A
- As long as it has a reliable source, and it has to be true, so I guess Chris should add it on. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Well, I'm just looking for a way to reduce the wordage. I don't know if there are "official" names for any parts of the basketball court. FWIW, this source calls those spots the wings. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) A minor fix to File:Basketball positions.svg could work. —Chris! ct 23:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my ignorance, but I seriously don't know the answers.—Chris! ct 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it does, but I don't know for sure, as Zagalejo may know, the ABA ball was colored with the American flag colors, same as the money ball. I'll my to find the reference. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 00:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Here is a About.com reference, and here is a USA Today reference. The USA Today one states, "I made just five shots, including one ABA-like red, white and blue ball, better known in NBA circles as the two-ball because you register 2 points if you make the final ball in each rack." -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Is anyone going to reply to my comment, since I really want to know what users think of it. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 23:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Hmmm. I don't think those sources really prove that the ball is intended as a salute to the ABA. I'll see if I can dig something up, though, since I'm pretty sure there is a connection of some sort. Zagalejo^^^ 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article could tell the readers that the red, white, and blue ball is ABA-like (ie. The ABA-like red, white, and blue ball, also known as the "money" ball...) -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 10:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- The two-point ball in the most recent contest is not red white blue anymore, but gold I believed. That's why I wrote "special colored ball" in the article. Anyhow, this info is pretty trivial and probably shouldn't be in the article.—Chris! ct 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that the blue and gold ball was only for the All-Star Game for New Orleans. I think it'll change back to the ABA-like ball in this year's All-Star Game in Phoenix. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 01:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article could tell the readers that the red, white, and blue ball is ABA-like (ie. The ABA-like red, white, and blue ball, also known as the "money" ball...) -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Hmmm. I don't think those sources really prove that the ball is intended as a salute to the ABA. I'll see if I can dig something up, though, since I'm pretty sure there is a connection of some sort. Zagalejo^^^ 04:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is anyone going to reply to my comment, since I really want to know what users think of it. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Here is a About.com reference, and here is a USA Today reference. The USA Today one states, "I made just five shots, including one ABA-like red, white and blue ball, better known in NBA circles as the two-ball because you register 2 points if you make the final ball in each rack." -- signed by SRE.K.A
- I think it does, but I don't know for sure, as Zagalejo may know, the ABA ball was colored with the American flag colors, same as the money ball. I'll my to find the reference. -- signed by SRE.K.A
- Sorry for my ignorance, but I seriously don't know the answers.—Chris! ct 23:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) You sure? Can you show any evidence on that?—Chris! ct 04:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but I believe it is true. Just say "specially colored ball" for now. -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards at 06:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure, but I believe it is true. Just say "specially colored ball" for now. -- signed by SRE.K.A
Comment - In the sentence "Hodges also holds the record for making 19 consecutive shots (which was not made in his 25-point round)," should the parenthetical comment read "which were not made in his 25-point round), if the "was" refers to the 19 shots? Otherwise looks good. Rlendog (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "often nicknamed the "money ball") -> "often nicknamed the money ball)"
- "Change "The first place is worth $35,000" to "The first place winner receives $35,000" and so on for the other places. The former seems weird to me.
- "Denotes the number of times the player have won" -> "Denotes the number of times the player has won"
- "Denotes the number of times a player from this team have won" -> "Denotes the number of times a player from this team has won"
- "Most points, round" -> "Most points in a round" to the the same as the next table.
- "Ray Allen won this contest in the 2000–01 season, while playing with the Milwaukee Bucks." doesn't need a comma.
- For all captions, change "this contest" to "the contest".
Comments by -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c]
- Laugh out loud, I found something that can be quite interesting. Why didn't you include the finalists of the Three-Point Shootout? If you don't, shouldn't this article be named "List of NBA All-Star Weekend Three-Point Shootout winners"? -- signed by SRE.K.A
nnoyomous.L.24 (spell my name backwards) at 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [23].
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2008
I am submiting this list because I think is ready to achieve FL status. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - many prose problems
- There were twenty three number one albums in 2008, including La Vida... Es un Ratico by Colombian singer-songwriter Juanes, which won five Latin Grammy Awards including Album of the Year. - twenty three should be written as a number. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cómplices, the eight number one album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel debuted at number 10 on the Billboard 200, the highest peak for the singer on that chart, with 32,000 units sold;[4] also gave the singer the record for most number one albums on this chart for one month, - 1)comma after Luis Miguel 2)Instead of a semi colon, use a period to start a new sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mexican performer Vicente Fernández with Para Siempre, won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album[6] and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart; while Primera Fila, a live album by Fernández, became the last number one album of 2008. - 1)Comma before and' 2) a comma would work better than a semi colon here. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With 26,000 units sold, Daddy Yankee debuted at number 13 on the Billboard 200 with Talento de Barrio, a sountrack for the movie starred by the Reggaeton performer, which also debuted at number one on this chart. - 1)Soundtrack is misspelled 2)There is a problem with the font, you need to stop the italics on the name of the album, it italicizes the whole sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wisin & Yandel returned to number one with Los Extraterrestres, and album that was awarded with the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album. - An album, not and album. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- and ended the year as the best selling latin album of 2008.[9] -If this is part of the previous sentence, the previous sentence needs end in a comma not a period. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Luis Fonsi with Palabras del Silencio, landed his best sales week ever with 30,000 units sold and the second biggest sales week of the year for a latin performer, only Luis Miguel came in higher with Cómplices starting with 32,000 in May. 1)Earned, not landed 2)the comma before only should be a semi colon. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the last three paragraphs together, they are too small to be individual paragraphs, and merge the second and third.--SRX 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- All issues fixed, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Chicago-based group K-Paz de la Sierra, one month after the death of their lead vocalist Sergio Gómez in late December 2007,[3] returned to the first position of the chart with Capaz de Todo Por Tí for six consecutive weeks."-->One month after the death of their lead vocalist Sergio Gómez in late December 2007, the Chicago-based group K-Paz de la Sierra returned to the top of the chart with Capaz de Todo Por Tí, for six consecutive weeks. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cómplices, the eight "-->Cómplices, the eighth... FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the highest peak for the singer on that chart, with 32,000 units sold." How can it be the highest peak if he had eight number-one albums?. Answer: It is his highest peak on the Billboard 200.
- "This album also gave the singer the record for most " Add the before "most". FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mexican performer Vicente Fernández with Para Siempre, won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album, and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart"-->Mexican performer Vicente Fernández's Para Siempre won the Latin Grammy Award for Best Ranchero Album and spent three non-consecutive weeks at the top of the chart... FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "while Primera Fila, a live album by Fernández, became the last number-one album of 2008." Make this a separate sentence. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "movie starred by the Reggaeton performer"-->movie that starred the reggaeton performer...
- "with the Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album"—Add award at the end of this phrase. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "latin" Capitalize. FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix these prose issues; I will also copy-edit afterwards, then I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All issues adressed, Jaespinoza (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One more: What is a "unit"? Everything else looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC) FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Copies" still isn't accurate (copies of what? albums?). You haven't changed every instance either. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FIXED units is a term used on Billboard magazine when they are talking about albums, but I think it was not clear enough for people that do not read Billboard. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Copies" still isn't accurate (copies of what? albums?). You haven't changed every instance either. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:03, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [24].
List of districts of West Bengal
Nominating this list for FLC review after a peer review was completed. Please add your comments/suggestions here.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support -- Reduce the overlinking. I tried to remove some, but just clean up the rest where duplication occurs. Mention what a Paragana is. It would be an interesting addition as 24 Paraganas sounds interesting. Expand contractions such as "viz" =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken care of the links: now only districts are linked twice, once in text and once in final table; if that is not desirable, please tell me which one should be kept, first occurrence only or only in the table. Pargana article is linked from 24 Parganas page, explaining what it means may be somewhat irrelevant for this list (concept of Pargana was abandoned long before West Bengal was formed), unless it is done in notes along with other Indian words used in various names like Purba, Zilla, Samiti, Sabhapati etc. Linked the former districts. If needed, I can add a small list of former districts like say, Former counties section in List of counties in Massachusetts.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeSupport The lead and the geography section have no inline citations.—Chris! ct 02:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Support. Nice work, Dibyendu.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Has improved a lot since its peer review. --KnowledgeHegemony talk 09:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Too many little prose problems, articles are missing, there are ambiguities, the flow is sometimes awkward. These examples are from the lead
- "and its main distributary Hooghly flows southwards to reach Bay of Bengal."-->and its main distributary, the Hooghly River, flows southwards to reach the Bay of Bengal.
- "The important Siliguri Corridor" Why is it important?
- "The important Siliguri Corridor that connects North East India with rest of the India, lies in North Bengal region of the state. "-->The important Siliguri Corridor, which connects North-East India with the rest of India, lies in the North Bengal region of the state.
- "Former princely state" Add a The at the beginning.
- "Hooghly district" "district" should be capitalized.
- "States Reorganisation Act" Add The before this.
- "led to addition of Puruliya district" missing "the" before "Puruliya" (which is spelled wrong).
- "West Bengal is now divided into 19 districts under three divisions." Either spell out 19 or write out three.
- "Other districts are further divided into administrative units like subdivisions and blocks" "like"-->such as.
- "the atomic ones" Be more specific than "ones". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the suggested changes and similar ones across the sections. I have removed important form the sentence on the 'Siliguri Corridor', as importance is explained by the sentence. Please see whether these issues are resolved now. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I looked over your changes and they are all good; I have not looked at the rest of the article. I was wrong about "District" being capitalized; rather, the Hooghly District article was wrong and I have moved it. I promise to finish commenting tomorrow. Good job so far, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the suggested changes and similar ones across the sections. I have removed important form the sentence on the 'Siliguri Corridor', as importance is explained by the sentence. Please see whether these issues are resolved now. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "West Bengal is a unique state of India that has both the Himalayas in the north and the Bay of Bengal at the south." So how does that make it unique?
- "The districts which are located at the north of the Ganges" "which"-->that.
- "are often termed together as the North Bengal"-->are often referred to collectively as North Bengal.
- "with effect from 1 March 1986" Do you mean to say that it was bifurcated on this date?
- "With effect from 1 January 2002" Same here.
- "Since 2007, the demand of a separate Gorkhaland state has been revived" "of"-->for.
- "Kamtapur state covering"-->Kamtapur state that covers.
- "DM is either an IAS officer or a WBCS officer and is appointed by the State Government of West Bengal."-->A DM is either a IAS officer or a WBCS officer, and is appointed by the State Government of West Bengal. Spell out what the abbreviations stand for.
- "(also known as CD blocks or
simply,blocks" - "A Panchayat Samiti is
beheaded" - "Third tier" Add The before thus phrase.
- "and the MLAs" Spell out this abbreviation out too.
- "panchayat" italicize this term.
- "etc." Italicize per WP:ABBR
- Disambiguation link needs fixing.
- Why are Kolkata and 1947 in the "Total" row?
- Refs 2, 12, 27 and 29 need
format=PDF
added to them. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
- Repetition of nineteen districts under three divisions. (in lead) and nineteen districts, grouped under three divisions: (before division list). Can the later be removed?
- Repetition of West Bengal is bordered by three countries: Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh; and five Indian states: Sikkim, Bihar, Chhattishgarh, Orissa, and Assam. Sikkim and Bhutan are located at the north of the state, Nepal at the northwest, Bihar and Chhattishgarh at the west, Orissa at the southwest, the Bay of Bengal at the south, and Bangladesh and Assam are at the east. in Geography section and also in lead. Text from geo-section can be removed.
- Repetition of Kolkata, the capital of the state, constitutes the Kolkata district in lead and geography section.
- Gorkha Hill Council is a unique administrative body in WB (a Government within a Government). Add one sentence on what executive powers it holds over the region. Currently the 1 sentence speaks of power maintained by Darjeeling district administration, but not of GHC.
- districts have more courts other than a District Court – not sure what more courts exist?
- The ref for this sentence provides the list of other courts in various districts. However, there is no clear structure across the districts (it would have been if each subdivision would have had a court for example), so details are not noted here.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Each district is divided into subdivisions, except the Kolkata district, which contains urban area only. Sentences after this talk of other districts with no mention of Kolkata Municipal Corporation being administrative body of capital city district.
- Municipal Corporation is not exactly a district-level or subdivision-level authority. Sentences after this talk about subdivisions of other districts. Kolkata district does not have any subdivision. However, it can be mentioned.--GDibyendu (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Done.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After the Indo-Bangladesh enclaves sentence can one sentence for South Talpatti Island be mentioned under South 24 Parganas district as disputed territory claimed by India?
--GPPande 11:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on repetition: I agree lead is summary of article, but exact duplicate of the sentences is not what is expected. In lead, only a point should be made like 19 districts - details of which can be put in sections below OR if it is just a point already mentioned in lead no need to mention it again in section below (example, what all surrounds WB). No need to repeat same at both places as it is already written at one place. Best example would be see India page - which says what all oceans and countries surround India in lead only not again in geo section. --GPPande 19:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I have got your point. I have removed one repetition from lead section. I don't think any other cleanup on repetition point of view can be done, as it will destroy the flow of prose. Having said that, I appreciate your view on this. Most FL's have leads which are not summaries. Initially I kept it like that and kept only geographical info in lead, so there was no repetition. The change to summary-style lead was done as suggested in the review. BTW, India article is written on a vast topic and all of its sections are written in summary style. So, the lead there need not be a summary of summaries to a T.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on repetition: I agree lead is summary of article, but exact duplicate of the sentences is not what is expected. In lead, only a point should be made like 19 districts - details of which can be put in sections below OR if it is just a point already mentioned in lead no need to mention it again in section below (example, what all surrounds WB). No need to repeat same at both places as it is already written at one place. Best example would be see India page - which says what all oceans and countries surround India in lead only not again in geo section. --GPPande 19:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kensplanet
- Can we have Page nos for Directory of District, Sub division, Panchayat Samiti/ Block and Gram Panchayats in West Bengal, March 2008". The document is huge. Just citing the document is not at all helpful for any readeer. Use {{harvnb}} templates if required. KensplanetTC 13:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The second page of the document contains intra-links for each district, where detailed info on constituent subdivisions and the GPs are provided. Also, each subdivision in the table is linked to a WP page that provides information on the subdivision (including info contained in this doc. That should be a lot of info for the reader.--GDibyendu (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Works
- Can you correct REF14 (Mandal, Asim Kumar (2003).
Google books preview fromThe Sundarbans of India: A Development Analysis. Indus Publishing.pp.pp. 168–169. ISBN 8173871434. ) KensplanetTC 14:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All comments addressed. KensplanetTC 18:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:04, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [25].
List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office
All concerns of reviewers in the previous nomination had been addressed when it was closed, and I can't find a rule against immediately resubmitting an article, so here it is again. If there are any new problems I'll fix those ones too. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support All my issues have been resolved. It is often good to say that you have fixed the issues on the FLC page itself. I didn't know that you had until just now, which is why I did not support last FLC. Anyway, the article is good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing notes:
- Despite only one review in this FLC, it has been extensively reviewed in previous FLCs. I think there was nothing else to mention on this FLC, and IMO it met the criteria.
- This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (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 User:Matthewedwards 05:16, 4 January 2009 [26].
List of Boston Latin School alumni
I believe the List of Boston Latin School alumni meets Wikipedia's featured list standards. Boston Latin School is my alma mater and I have put a lot of work into the article over the past week. This list would be a major point of pride for me, to have my work honored as the best Wikipedia has to offer. It would also be an honor to create the first list of high school alumni to become a featured list. The motto of Boston Latin is "summus primi" which can mean "we are fisrt" (it is the oldest public school in the U.S.) or "we are number one." I want Boston Latin to be the first high school to receive this honor, and have it be the best high school list on Wikipedia.
Thank you, --Pgp688 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Can you move {{Dynamic list}} down to the list. It is distracting when placed in the lead, imo.—Chris! ct 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved {{Dynamic list}} underneath the Alumni heading. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked U.S. News & World Report
- Some rows are missing years. If the year is unknown, put an emdash in the empty cells
- Comment: THe dash in missing years implies that there wasn't one. I think that all people should be able to have a year listed or at least an estimate. Reywas92Talk 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see four possible solutions to this. First, we could leave the article as is. Second, we could leave the cells without dates blank, but User:Chrishomingtang argued this was not a good idea. Third, we could estimate the year of graduation to be 18 years after birth, but we would have to indicate that this is just an estimate. Fourth, we good remove names from the list that do not have years. All of these options are not ideal. I'd like the input of another editor on this issue. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a requirement for FL, but are there any WikiProjects the page falls under the scope of? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the list to WikiProject Schools, WikiProject Boston, and WikiProject Massachusetts.--Pgp688 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We do not start lists as "This is a list of..." anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Still needs rewording, see List of Wilfrid Laurier University people for an example. We have been trying to get away from the near-repetition of the title in the lead. Nothing should be bolded, really. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- Images need checking, ping User:Awadewit.
"The school's first class was in single figures, but it now has 2,400 pupils drawn from all parts of Boston."-->The school's first class had a population in the single figures; it now has 2,400 pupils."The school's first female student was not until the nineteenth century. "-->The school's first female student was admitted in the nineteenth century."It was not until 1972, when Boston Latin would admit its first co-educational class."-->In 1972, Boston Latin admitted its first co-educational class.
- I went ahead and changed the three sentences as suggested. I'm slightly hesitant to ask Awadewit because of the user's response to User_talk:Awadewit#Image_review_for_List_of_monarchs_of_the_Muhammad_Ali_Dynasty. I have gone through all the images and I believe they are all good faith public domain. Was there another user who does image reviews? --Jh12 (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Moni3. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, I'll notify that editor. Also on further review, I think there may actually be a problem with File:ArthurFiedler Japan.jpg (Star and Stripes appears to be independent of the Department of Defense and I think that image is under their copyright). --Jh12 (talk) 19:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several of your references need last access dates: Refs 1, 2, 4, 5. If possible, can you make the last access dates formatted the same?Ref 26 needsformat=PDF
added to it.Ref 27 has something wrong with its formatting.Why does Ref 31 use Brittanica? Generally, we shouldn't be citing to another tertiary source.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PDF format added to refs, Ref 27 fixed, Ref 31 changed to a published book, accessdates added to 1,2,4,5, all accessdates standardized to ISO format (although I'm honestly not sure what the cite templates are doing half the time). --Jh12 (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You did what you could; the remaining inconsistencies have to do with the way the Cite XXX templates deal with the input. Ref 1 uses Brittanica also, couldn't you use the official site instead? Also, you haven't resolved my prose comments and image check comment above. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Jh12 has resolved the prose issues and the use of Brittanica as a source. I don't think the image issue has been resolved by an editor who is an expert in that regard, but all the images appear to have lock-down copyright-free rationales.
Comment: It would be helpful if the table included a hyperlinked footnote symbol (either in the column heading or in the first appearance of the --) to help readers find the footnote to the table (the note that reads "—" indicates that the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown). Also, I suggest simplifying the wording of the note to — indicates that the year of graduation is unknown. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it would be better to put the disclaimer before the alumni names, instead of after them. --Pgp688 (talk) 07:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote would work also, but I don't know how make them. --Pgp688 (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it looks good. --Pgp688 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's much better. However, it is necessary to say "the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown" or would "the year of graduation is unknown" be sufficient? Since the table lists only people who graduated, it seems unnecessary to say "the person graduated," and the reference to "year of commencement" seems needlessly confusing (apparently the ceremony of "commencement" is being used here as a synonym for "graduation"). --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the original wording was unnecessarily verbose. I was worried that readers might believe the em dash means the person did not graduate, but by placing the footnotes in, this should not be an issue. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The above comments are resolved (and hidden). However, I have a new concern. Most of the sortable table columns don't sort "properly." The human names sort by first name -- not wrong, but not particularly desirable. Some of the dates sort properly, but some don't. Fixing the date sort may require expert assistance. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sort by last name and dates have been fixed. I placed the people without dates at the bottom during sort. It can be changed to sort at the top with any lower number like 0. As for if the list should be manually changed to be listed by chronological order per below, I'll leave that up to the discretion of the primary editors. Thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The above comments are resolved (and hidden). However, I have a new concern. Most of the sortable table columns don't sort "properly." The human names sort by first name -- not wrong, but not particularly desirable. Some of the dates sort properly, but some don't. Fixing the date sort may require expert assistance. --Orlady (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the original wording was unnecessarily verbose. I was worried that readers might believe the em dash means the person did not graduate, but by placing the footnotes in, this should not be an issue. --Pgp688 (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's much better. However, it is necessary to say "the person graduated but the year of commencement is unknown" or would "the year of graduation is unknown" be sufficient? Since the table lists only people who graduated, it seems unnecessary to say "the person graduated," and the reference to "year of commencement" seems needlessly confusing (apparently the ceremony of "commencement" is being used here as a synonym for "graduation"). --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it looks good. --Pgp688 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can do it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All my comments have been resolved. Nice list. --Orlady (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 1: I strongly urge you not to use thumbnail images like you are doing. Make the images part of the table when relevant instead. -- Cat chi? 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll make this change. Revert if you don't like. But before doing that try adjusting the image size. -- Cat chi? 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment 2: All images are licensed & attributed properly. -- Cat chi? 22:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comment 3: I would advice the chronologic of alphabetic sorting of the list. I know this can be done by clicking the arrows but it should be sorted by default. I'd advise chronologic listing by default as thats probably more interesting. -- Cat chi? 22:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have been thinking about this for a while now. While most alumni lists display alphabetically, it is because the alumni are split into categories, such as sports, the arts, politics, et cetera. In this article, because the graduate alumni are in one big list, it is a really good idea to sort chronologically. I like how it shows that in its early years, Latin's graduates were mostly statesmen and ministers, but now the list includes many people from television, music, and sports. Furthermore, sorting alphabetically is only useful if one is trying to locate a name. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in the bot processing the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{FLC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ "all-star". Reference.com. Dictionary.com, LLC. Retrieved 2008-12-28.
- ^ "all-star". Reference.com. Dictionary.com, LLC. Retrieved 2008-12-28.