Scorpion0422 (talk | contribs) + 2 |
promoting 10 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{featured list log}} |
{{featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
{{TOClimit|limit=3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Detroit Red Wings players}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2008 World Series of Poker Europe results}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 WWE Draft}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at pitcher}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kronos Quartet discography}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kronos Quartet discography}} |
Revision as of 01:43, 10 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [1].
List of Detroit Red Wings players
I've expanded this list to meet the FL guidelines. This is similar to already Featured lists such as List of Columbus Blue Jackets players, List of San Jose Sharks players and others. Thanks in advance. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Look at List of Chicago Blackhawks players as an example. List of Columbus Blue Jackets players and List of San Jose Sharks players were promoted more a year ago, so they may not exceed the current standards. Adding one more paragraph onto the lead would be nice. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I was already working on this before your note. I've expanded the lead now. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion as a Leafs fan. Is there anything you could add as a lead image, maybe Nicklas Lidstrom since he's the current captain? Also, could you add images of players to the right like what is done in List of Calgary Flames players? -- Scorpion0422 04:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, a leafs fan. ;-) I've moved Lidstrom's image to the lead and replaced it with another. As for moving the images "to the right", I'm not sure what you mean there. Both articles look the same to me, as far as image format goes. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's suggesting that you add MORE images to the right. If not, then I have no idea. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjd, it's not bad. The article on the team is large, yet the lead here is pretty short. I wonder whether you might add a few points about the history of the team, which seems to be full of interest in their article. A featured list needs to be a bit special in terms of the lead-in you give the readers to the list. We want their interest to be peaked in some way. Can you identify, as well, a few of the more striking or interesting facts in the larger article and its siblings?
- Idea: the Seasons column wraps the year ranges, causing the rows to be double the height. Except for 1999–2001 etc, the closing range could be reduced to two digits (as mandated by MOSNUM and as used all over the home article (1946–53). Have you thought of whipping it through Word's find and replace (find –19 and replace with –)? Most people will experience this wrapping unless they manually stretch the window.
- I like that pale green background. Pity there are so many red links, but I guess you're gonna help with stubs ...? Tony (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tony. I've fixed the numbering of the seasons as you suggested. I've also further expanded the lead. As for the red links, yes - I definitely plan to work on creating those. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just an update in case you're interested - I've already corrected over 100 of the red links. A lot of them were just linked to alternate names or nicknames. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images
- File:Terry Sawchuk.jpg - You cannot use due to it being copyrighted. It wouldn't be fair-use eligible either.
- I'm going to AGF on File:Lidstrom stanleycup2.jpg and File:Gordie Howe.jpg. Neither, seem to be copied of another website and although I am a bit concerned with the amount of image warnings the second's uploader has, the photo's scratches make me think it's an authentic digitization.
- All other images check out fine.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was waiting on correspondence regarding the Sawchuck photo but I'm not sure how long that will be, so I've removed and replaced that image. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope these comments are helpful. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Thanks again. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Looks quite good. The photo position seems like a necessary evil with these large player lists with many columns. Wish we could do something about it, but I won't hold up my support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 9 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [2].
List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk
Most issues at the last FLC were resolved during the course of the FLC; however, it was agreed that it would be better for the list to include all the clergy alumni of the college, not just those who became a bishop or archbishop; so I took it away and added in the names of other members of the clergy from the main list of alumni, and here we are again. As for comprehensiveness, I've trawled the usual sources (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Dictionary of Welsh Biography etc) and written so many articles about minor Welsh clergymen of the last 400 years that my wife thinks I'm slightly nuts. The list follows a similar format to the other Featured Lists in the series, such as the law and government list and the maths and science list. Comments welcome, and appreciated. BencherliteTalk 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.westminster-abbey.org/press/news/16454 deadlinks. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks. BencherliteTalk 00:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments from that same old derisible meddling fool....
|
- Support, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Niiiice. Please prepare more nomination like this. One point: where space is short, why not do the MoS suggestion and make the closing years in a range two digits (provided the century is the same): "1892–97". Could fix in five mins. Tony (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the list of Principals and Fellows I sort by years of tenure, and 1890–1904 would (incorrectly) sort before 1890–99 but (correctly) after 1890–1899; so I've used the long form there, and for consistency in the other lists as well. The MOS says that both are permissible, even if the short form is the more usual. Do you mind if I keep it as it is? Thanks for your time. BencherliteTalk 06:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Very well done.
"but later went back to Anglicanism" Maybe "returned" rather than "went back"?No links to Methodists and Baptists (in the lead)?"his 'Blue' for rugby" Double quotes, I think.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Thanks for your review. BencherliteTalk 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [3].
2008 World Series of Poker Europe results
- Nominator(s): I'm Spartacus!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus!'
I am nominating this for featured list because... I had nominated this article back in February and it looked like it was going to pass, unfortunately, there were a few open items and I was unable to address them due to real life activities. I have since taken care of those open items, and this list should be good to go or close to it.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I will try to resolve all open items before mother's day, but should anything come about between Sunday and Wednesday I may not be able to address it until Thursday. If there are open items that prevent this from being promoted on Wednesday, please do not close it as I will be travelling.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 4's access date is formatted in a different format from the other articles.- Fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 5 needs a last access date.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed-it was a formatting error.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - How reliable are Poker News, Poker Listings, and Gaming Business? I'm not up on most of the poker sites. Will wait until after Dabomb's review is looked at before commenting on the prose. Giants2008 (17-14) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- quick response, will deal with Dabomb's stuff tonight, Poker News and Poker Listings are what I would consider B grade in reliability. Eg I'd put them on par with your local newspaper. Gaming Business is one that I wasn't as familiar with. The site looks pretty legit and reliable, eg it isn't a mere blog, and the article that is being referenced is derived directly from the Press Release, so for this purpose I would argue that it is solid.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review:
- Repeat poker tournament link in the second paragraph. If readers want to know more, they'll have already clicked on the first link.
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In marketting the WSOPE". Typo.
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In a contrast to my first comment, I'd like to see Betfair linked.
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Furthermore, as the laws that govern the age of gambling differ in England than the U.S.; the WSOPE admits younger players." I think the semi-colon should be a comma.
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation needed for Obrestad being the youngest player to win a bracelet. Should be easy enough to find a good source for that.
- fixed---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's about it. Looks fairly good overall, which I would expect since this is the list's second time at FLC (and probably would have passed before if circumstances were different). Giants2008 (17-14) 02:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose review:
- 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [4].
2009 WWE Draft
I am nominating this for featured list because... after working on it for about a week, I feel that I have met the criteria for featured lists. This is in a way based on its predecessor FL, but not entirely. Unlike the other FL, this is set up a bit different and I hope it is more comprehensible. It was copyedit by Mattisse and Nikki (thanks alot), so hopefully only few mistakes are found. Happy reviewing. Note: I don't think stability will be an issue since the event is completely over now, and will not be affected heavily by future events.--Truco 01:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I, Truco, am taking a semi-leave from Wiki at the time I'm typing this. Any further comments will be addressed by members of WP:PW. Thanks!--Truco 03:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good-looking list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Note that I made a sentence structure improvement myself before coming here. I was ready to support when I saw it, and figured it would be easy enough to fix it myself. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources
- What makes http://www.gerweck.net/ratings.htm reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would it be feasible to add embedded images in the tables? After all, a large portion of the wrestlers do have free images. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 8 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [5].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at pitcher
The last of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you. As with the DH list, it is half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments - Only a few minor things to clear up before I support. Good luck with the topic.
Move reference 5 to be after the comma."Mike Hampton has won the most Silver Slugger Awards as a pitcher; he won five consecutive awards with four different teams from 1999 to 2003." Redundant use of "won". Perhaps change the punctuation and use "winning"?"Hampton has hit the most home runs in a pitcher's Silver Slugger-winning season; he hit seven in 2001." Here, "hit" is repeated. Personally, I like the "with" setup for numbers in the other lists, and later in this one. How about some variant of that.Giants2008 (17-14) 21:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all. I don't know HOW I missed that first one... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks fine now. Great work on this series. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"Hampton's 1999 on-base percentage is also a record " Besides being unnecessary, "also" is confusing since it sounds as if you've referred to his on-base percentage before.
"Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in batting average, with the .356 mark he set in 1993.[14] Micah Owings is the slugging percentage leader (.683 in 2007)." So Orel Hershiser leads pitchers in general, or just Silver Slugger-winning pitchers? Same with Owings.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:30, 8 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [6].
List of Silver Slugger Award winners at designated hitter
OK, we are reaching the end of the Silver Slugger series. To all reviewers who have been so helpful in the promotion of the first six lists, I thank you, and reward your diligence with this (and one more) list to review... and they are half the size of the others! As these are completed, I will progress to WP:FTC. I appreciate all help and comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support - Same high quality as the others in the series. The only thing I saw that I wasn't thrilled with is "that position receives a Silver Slugger Award rather than the pitchers". "the" could be removed. Other than that, the list looks good. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Great job on the topic.
"David Ortiz won his four consecutively" Unnecessary word.
"Harold Baines won the award while playing for two separate teams in the same season" The logic of the sentence is off; he sounds as if he was playing with two teams in the same time.
Image caption: "Edgar Martínez is tied for the Silver Slugger lead among DHs." It's not clear what "lead" is referring to here.Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "a bat trophy" personal perhaps, but this reads oddly to me. "a trophy in the shape of a baseball bat?"
- "in the American League" - you've already abbreviated this to AL above so why not use the abbreviation?
- Same with National League.
- To the two above, this is in keeping with the "consistent use" guideline for abbreviations. IMO, using abbreviations in prose looks ugly (unless it's something extremely long and tedious to read like Trinitrotoluene vs TNT), so I use them in the captions and nowhere else. This is the same convention followed in all of the Silver Slugger lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough but it runs a high risk of a reader getting to the abbreviation before the explanation if you use the abbreviation in lead images, which, in my opinion, is suboptimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never actually use the league abbreviation in the lead image because that spot is reserved for the overall leader in MLB. The DH is the only one where I could see this causing an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, my mistake, it was the DH in the lead caption that worries me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I never actually use the league abbreviation in the lead image because that spot is reserved for the overall leader in MLB. The DH is the only one where I could see this causing an issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough but it runs a high risk of a reader getting to the abbreviation before the explanation if you use the abbreviation in lead images, which, in my opinion, is suboptimal. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To the two above, this is in keeping with the "consistent use" guideline for abbreviations. IMO, using abbreviations in prose looks ugly (unless it's something extremely long and tedious to read like Trinitrotoluene vs TNT), so I use them in the captions and nowhere else. This is the same convention followed in all of the Silver Slugger lists. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be showing my ignorance (as a Brit who considers baseball even more tedious than US football!), but I am really struggling to get my head around "Because lineups in the American League include the designated hitter (DH),[4] that position receives a Silver Slugger Award[5] rather than pitchers, who receive an award in the National League[6] because they are included in the batting order"...
- I've tried re-wording this several times; I fought with it in the regular list too. I already changed it once in this list as well; I have no idea how to make it better at this point, which could just be my frustration with off-Wiki issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the wording in the pitcher list any better? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording there is clear, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I copied that wording into Silver Slugger Award and tweaked the wording in this list, following that pattern, to be more clear. Should be done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording there is clear, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "1983, 1985–1986" - would be better a 1983, 1985, 1986 in my opinion.
- Again, this follows conventions from other lists; the en-dash is used to emphasize consecutive wins. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it adds potential for confusion that there may have been a season spanning over two years (like our European football seasons), and thus one missing year. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, this follows conventions from other lists; the en-dash is used to emphasize consecutive wins. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd expand DH in the lead caption as it may be one of the first things someone reads and it may not be terribly clear to a non-expert.
- Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 5 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [7].
List of Grade I listed buildings in West Somerset
I am nominating this as a featured list because it is comprehensive, supported by appropriate references and images and, I believe, meets all FL criteria. It follows the design & layout of the recently promoted List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset. — Rod talk 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Comment There's not really much one can find to object to, or helpful criticism to improve it; or at least, I'm not good enough to help. There is one single issue that leaves me a bit skeptical, and this regards the Church of St John the Baptist, Carhampton. You write: "The most recent buildings included in the list" is "the Church of St John the Baptist in Carhampton, which was rebuilt in 1863". Now, as you know better than me, the great majority of parish churches were subject to heavyhanded restoration in the Victorian age; now to single out St John is in my opinion misleading, because while the tower was rebuilt the church remains essentially medieval, nothwstanding the restoration, and not a Neo-Gothic building. On the same grounds I'm not sure saying in the tables for date completion at St John "1863" is fully correct.--Aldux (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment When you say "date completed" among the columns, what does "completed" stand exactly for? The doubt came reading the description of the Church of St Andrew, Stogursey; you date completion 1117, but it was considerably enlarged in 1180 and remodelled in the 15th-century, according to your article on the church.--Aldux (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - thank you for your comments. As you know obtaining accurate dates and other details of buildings hundreds of years old can be difficult, and as you say the majority have undergone extensive changes. I have tried to take as the key date the first sentence of the descriptions at Images of England or the Somerset Historic Environment Record as these are the details used by reliable sources (English Heritage and the County Council) as part of the formal record of listed buildings, but would agree "completion" is often nebulous. I am aware of one Grade I listed building at Downside Abbey which is still listed as unfinished! Perhaps you could suggest another heading for the date column or we could add another "note" explaining that completion date is often unclear? I will also remove the "most recent" claim from the lede.— Rod talk 11:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lede. I personally believe the date column is a useful bit of information and I perfectly understand your difficulties - I'm currently facing similar ones with that column in a separate article. Maybe a good idea was what you propose, i.e. a note clarifying that medieval churches were generally built and rebuilt through an arc of several centuries.--Aldux (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose this seems an unnecessary forking of content that should be in the article List of listed buildings in West Somerset as is with the case of List of listed buildings in Runcorn. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't take this personally, but your comment hasn't exactly striked me as one of the most thoughtful and ponderated I've had the the opportunity to read at FLC... Do begin with, you know that Runcorn is just a civil parish, while West Somerset is a district with 43 civil parishes in it; and that while Runcorn has only 59 listed buildings, West Somerset has 1228 listed buildings. And you seriously want to put these all in a single page? Oh, and lets not forget another tiny detail: List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester are all featured lists; and also, there are such lists of Grade I listed buildings for every single county of England, while the case of the Runcorn list is quite exceptional.--Aldux (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks to Aldux for making most of the points I would have done about the numbers & if all listed buildings were included it would exceed the recommended page size. If there is any forking it is of List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which was split into districts because of the page size issues. I'd also point out that as it says in the article - Grade I structures are those considered to be "buildings of exceptional interest" and therefore the most important.— Rod talk 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't take this personally, but your comment hasn't exactly striked me as one of the most thoughtful and ponderated I've had the the opportunity to read at FLC... Do begin with, you know that Runcorn is just a civil parish, while West Somerset is a district with 43 civil parishes in it; and that while Runcorn has only 59 listed buildings, West Somerset has 1228 listed buildings. And you seriously want to put these all in a single page? Oh, and lets not forget another tiny detail: List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset, List of Grade I listed buildings in Bristol and List of Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester are all featured lists; and also, there are such lists of Grade I listed buildings for every single county of England, while the case of the Runcorn list is quite exceptional.--Aldux (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hassocks Great list! I'm very excited to see this here, as I am currently preparing several similar lists for other parts of England. I am comfortable with the layout in its present form, but will suggest some things to think about (maybe you have already considered these, Rod, and found them to be inappropriate for this list, which is fine). Also some other comments...
- You could work in a quote about Grade I buildings being considered "of more than national importance". I've got a ref for it somewhere if it's not in ref [1]. It would help to put the buildings' importance in a wider context.
- Second paragraph might need refs for the largest centres of population and administrative HQ information; I'm not sure, but I would probably add them to be on the safe side.
- There are numerous religious structures in Somerset, with the largest number being Anglican parish churches, dating from norman or medieval eras. Some problems:
- →Perhaps "Somerset has many religious structures..." for the first clause
- →"With" as a connector is ungainly; try "...religious structures; the largest number are from the Norman or medieval eras".
- →"norman" should be capitalised.
- Suggest wikilinking manor house.
- It would be lovely to have a picture column with a small (100px?) image of each building. Many are already available on the individual articles, and others would be reasonably easy to source, I imagine...? I wouldn't necessarily recommend this for longer lists of listed buildings, or those which contain lots of private houses, farms etc. I "don't mind the ribbon of pics down the side" approach, and have used it myself in the past; but for a relatively short list, adding pictures for each would bring benefits without causing the page to be too huge.
- Did you consider coordinates rather than grid references? I prefer coordinates for their precision and more intuitive feel.
- To save space, especially if pics are added (thereby making your rows wider), the grid ref (or coordinates) could be added to the location column. I have done this on some articles and it seems to work quite well.
- Refs are good – Images of England is a resource I know well :) All buildings have their own articles, which is also good.
Also agree with comments above that the content fork argument is not an issue. Lists of "all" listed buildings (i.e. all grades) have their place in instances where there aren't many: hence List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley, a borough with only 95, and indeed the FL-status Runcorn list mentioned above. In Crawley, only three are Grade I, so a split into the three grades would not serve readers well. In the other direction, whole counties are far too large to create lists for, even for individual grades. Even some districts are problematic once you get down to the Grade II level (Brighton and Hove has about 1,120...). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 12:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you for helpful suggestions and good luck with the similar lists in your area.
- The extra quote for Grade I being "of more than national importance" would be good. It is not in [1]. I looked at List of listed buildings and structures in Crawley and thought it might be in ref [4] on that page - but this gives a broken link - help appreciated.
- I haven't given figures of populations for largest centres, these can be confirmed from the articles themselves if needed and are not key to the list.
- I have accepted & revised the lede based on your comments about the churches sentence & linking manor house - which I've also done on List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset which was recently promoted & I will apply to all the districts listed at List of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all at various stages of development.
- A picture column has been discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grade I listed buildings in North Somerset/archive1. I can see the attraction but have previously been advised against having too many images because of download times. It also doesn't look good where pictures are not available for all entries in a list & (having searched extensively while doing all the articles) I do not believe that appropriate free/licenced images "would be reasonably easy to source" (although I will be in West Somerset with a camera this weekend :).
- The gridrefs link to the same GeoHack Tool as other forms of coordinates - which form has a "more intuitive feel" will probably depend on a readers previous experience. I would be happy to add these to the location column if others think this would be a good idea.
- Thanks also for your comment on forking and size of lists. The one which is scaring me just to think about is List of Grade I listed buildings in Bath and North East Somerset and possible Grade II* and II lists. The council claims over 5,000 listed buildings of which 663 are grade I (although there are only around 100 English Heritage listings covering them).— Rod talk 16:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Weak support - a few minor issues and a suggestion...
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointed. I find it hard to get a grip on the articles this relates to. There appear to be no links to articles on the architectural styles, and precious little summary information on them. I'd be happy for a lead twice that size—it seems necessary to prepare our readers to get a lot out of the table. Can we have just a little info as well on the listing process / agency? How long has listing been going on for (since the 70s, if I had to have a guess). It's a fabulously rich topic and the list is much-needed. Lovely pics; but could you expand the captions for them by stating, at the very least, the century or year of construction, the style, and the location? Tony (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to expand the lede with a little more information about the listing process (begun by a provision in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947), but I would suggest readers who want more about English Heritage etc could read the specific articles about them. The architectural styles are very mixed but I've added some dates and further info on the structures mentioned. I've also expanded the captions on the images to provide further context. I would be grateful for further guidance about what else should go in the lede & perhaps make you less disappointed with the list.— Rod talk 21:42, 4 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [8].
List of United States Military Academy alumni (Medal of Honor)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in my long term work on service academy alumni. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Comment I added {{main}} at the top because I think it's important to have a visible link to the main list (perhaps you could add one to the other lists?). Is the hat tossing image really the best one to use as the lead image? I realize it shows graduates, but I'm assuming that none of them are actually in the list. Perhaps an image of the campus would work better? -- Scorpion0422 15:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Starting a list/article off with "main" simply doesn't set right with me. That's the whole purpose of the template at the bottom linking them all together, plus the template links all together not just the main one. Yes, hat tossing over a school photo as we're mainly dealing with grads here, not the curriculum, buildings, school history, etc. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why do you have the "a" note as a general reference? It's used for George Ritter Burnett only, isn't it? Why is it a "general reference" and not an "inline citation"?
- The "b" note is used for everyone, so why can't you have just an asterisk next to the source under "general references" and remove all repetitive "b" notes?
- What is the difference between the source you used as "c" and any source in the "inline citations"? In other words, why is "c" listed in the "general references"?
I apologize if you already answered these questions...--Crzycheetah 06:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I already support the list. I've reviewed and supported several of the other lists in this series, I see no major trauma in keeping them as a series with similar layouts. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I don't have time to do a full image review. But I clicked on a small sample and found no issues. In case no full image review is done, I'm assuming from what I've seen that they are okay. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:46, 9 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [9].
List of number-one albums of 2008 (Japan)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets WP:FL's criteria and feedback could also help the article improve, if needed. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 03:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Companies and websites (e.g. Oricon and Excite) should not be italicized.Dabomb87 (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know how to remove the italicization. The cite web template did that itself. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 16:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.Dabomb87 (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done? Does that exclude YMO, SMAP, and KAT-TUN? Because all three are acronyms. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 18:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove "which is"?
- "2008" looks like a useless sea of trivia in the year article. For hidden links like this, why not instead list them in the "See also" section (UNpiped and possibly with your expert comment for readers). Otherwise, no one's gonna click on them. And separate the numbers: "In 2008 alone, 37 albums reached the peak of the chart." ... or put "in 2008" at the end of the sentence. Or "2008 saw 37" ...
- "eighteen" but "28"? See WP:MOSNUM on spelling out.
- in 2008, not of?
- "1,447,149 copies"? I hope it's iron-clad accurate; otherwise, don't repeat your source's unreasonable claim to accuracy: "more than 1.4 million copies" ... easier to read, too. Same one second later.
- The source clearly says the number of the sales. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Tony is saying is that it's a super-extraordinary claim, and one that should be supported by more than one reference. Narrowing down to such an accurate figure is dangerous. "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold 1,470,959 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold." For one thing, the reference is dated December 11; that leaves 20 more days in 2008 to accumulate more sales, meaning the figure is probably wrong (and yes, I'm aware of Verifiability vs Truth). If the paragraph said "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold over 1,470,000 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold more than 1,447,000 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with nearly 1,405,000 albums sold." it's still correct and the source still verifies the statement. Please follow up with Tony at his talk page to make sure that I'm not putting words in his mouth, though. His concern may be different and I've interpreted it wrong. One other thing here, could you do something about the "parastub"biness of the two sentences? Matthewedwards : Chat 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oricon starts it's new chart in the middle of December of the previous year and ends it in the middle of December the current year. The sale figures are correct. Any sales made after the yearly chart is posted and ends gets counted into the new yearly chart, in this case the 2009 yearly chart. The source which supports the claim is from the Oricon itself, which is the official chart in Japan. Anyway I'll ask him if that's what he meant. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 12:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Tony is saying is that it's a super-extraordinary claim, and one that should be supported by more than one reference. Narrowing down to such an accurate figure is dangerous. "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold 1,470,959 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold 1,447,149 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with 1,404,658 albums sold." For one thing, the reference is dated December 11; that leaves 20 more days in 2008 to accumulate more sales, meaning the figure is probably wrong (and yes, I'm aware of Verifiability vs Truth). If the paragraph said "The best-selling album overall of 2008 was R&B group Exile's Exile Love, released in late 2007, which sold over 1,470,000 copies. The second-best-selling album was Amuro's Best Fiction, which sold more than 1,447,000 copies, followed by pop folk band Kobukuro's 5296, with nearly 1,405,000 albums sold." it's still correct and the source still verifies the statement. Please follow up with Tony at his talk page to make sure that I'm not putting words in his mouth, though. His concern may be different and I've interpreted it wrong. One other thing here, could you do something about the "parastub"biness of the two sentences? Matthewedwards : Chat 06:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you widen the first column so that it's more likely to avoid the wrapping of many of the dates? Rob from the second (or better, the last) column.
- I don't know how to widen the columns. Can you tell me how? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So the nav-box should be tucked away right down the bottom?
- List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.) has the box at the bottom. Where do you propose I put it then? 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 11:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it probably will pass, but needs a little finishing off. Tony (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Moon, the hyper-accurate figure is no big deal. Matthew explains it perfectly: which particular hour was that arrived at? It will remain for ages until updated in this list. But it was only a thought. Tony (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - why does dates of chart go from April 7 to April 19? And the publication date of the reference for the album on April 19 is April 10 - did they predict the future? Same with ref 23, dated 1 April but used to reference April 7 charts... Perhaps there's a simple explanation for this? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 1 May 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 Matthewedwards 01:43, 10 May 2009 [10].
List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada
My second Canadian Olympic player list, modeled after List of Olympic men's ice hockey players for Canada. This one is different because it contains columns for each Olympic year. I figured this would be useful because there are so few teams and because many have participated in multiple tournaments, the sort feature didn't work properly before. I realize that it may be a little confiusing because the years column doesn't have an "Olympics" header, but I tried to add one and I couldnt' figure out a way to do it without killing the sortability. Just in case someone asks, I don't think this system could be used in the men's list because there is an extra 70 years of history (thus making it far too wide) and only a handful have played on multiple teams. Also, I was considering adding a small unfancy list of the other potential players for the 2010 team. Does anyone think I should? Anyway, all comments are welcome. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The column Notes shouldn't be sortable. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the formatting of ref 5 (Podnieks & Szemberg 2008 as well as a link); are that two separate refs? Also, ampersands shouldn't be used.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It's a book called the top 100 IIHF stories. However, all 100 stories have been posted at the IIHF website. So it credits the author, then links to the online page. That system is used because a similar page, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, cites that book about 40 times and it was very unweildy having to repeat the same stuff (publisher, date, etc.) over and over again, so I just switched to the format used for books.
- Thanks once again for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Was a very good list to begin with and surely meets the FL standards now. The only thing I would recommend for the future is more photos to the right of the tables if they become avaliable; more than enough room exists for them. That doesn't affect the current status of the page, however. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some more free ones on Flickr, but they aren't particularily good. (example) -- Scorpion0422 15:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Not well-written; glitches.
- MOS prefers numbers above ten, doesn't it? No big deal, tho. There are other examples ... and then "14" etc.
- I was told that you should try to be consistant with numbers when they are in one sentence. So either have 6 and 17 or six and seventeen.
- Out-of-order statements: "Canada has sent a team to all three tournaments. Those teams have consisted of five goaltenders and thirty-two skaters, all of whom have won Olympic medals." The goal-keepers and skaters needs to be a separate, prior statement, yes? Join up the three tournaments and medals bits?
- Done.
- "previously", like "currently" so often, is redundant.
- "Before 1998, women's hockey had been dominated by Canada's national team. Canadian teams had won every World Championship up to that point". Isn't just "Until 1998," good enough, without the last four words? Look throughout for redundant wording, and try these exercises in distributed sessions.
- Fixed.
- "and is tied with the United States for the most overall medals"—The "is" looks funny to me. What, right now? Last year? When? WP doesn't like time-phrases that immediately become obsolete. There's another "is" a few seconds further on. See MoS on this.
- Fixed the first statement.
And other things. Please find an unfamiliar word-nerd to copy-edit. Lots of red links; I guess this means your next task is to write stubs and see them through to something better? Tony (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to find a copyeditor. Thanks for taking a look. -- Scorpion0422 16:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images Check out fine. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:34, 9 May 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 Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [11].
List of sultans of the Ottoman Empire
I am nominating this for featured list because, after much hard work, I think it is now up to the FL standards. The subject is obviously of vital historical importance. There are very few monarchy-related FLs, so this one has been modeled after the recently promoted List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty. Since the image issue is likely to be brought up, I would like to say that I uploaded nearly all the images used in the article, and reviewed each one of them several times to ensure proper sourcing/licensing. Therefore, I think it is unnecessary to disturb one of the regular image reviewers as this would be a waste of their time. However, if you do find a problem with a particular image, please point it out. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to point out that I notified members of WikiProject Turkey about this FLC, and asked them to review it (just review, not support). This seemed logical to me, because people from an article's WikiProject are likely to be familiar with the topic and are thus the most apt to do content-related comments. However, I was informed by Truco that this was not OK as it constituted potential canvassing. I was not aware of this and apologize for my actions. I will no longer notify WikiProject members when submitting an FLC in the future. Anyway, even if one were not to take into account the 5 support votes from members of WikiProject Turkey (Darwinek, Gökhan, Chapultepec, CeeGee, WillMall), the list still received 3 support votes from users who are not part of the project and whom I didn't notify of this ongoing FLC (Truco, Quadell, Qp10qp). Regards. --BomBom (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is "Sultans" capitalized in the title? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that's the why List of Sultans of Zanzibar, a current FL, is named. Do you think it should use a lower case s? --BomBom (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Nice list! Best of luck, – Quadell (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, but a question about the dates of the first three sultans. Checking in my copy of The Ottoman Empire by Colin Imber (Palgrave, 2002), he gives the following: Osman I, d. c. 1324; Orhan, c. 1324–62, Murad I, 1362–89. The Wikipedia article gives the change from Orhan to Murad as 1359. Looking around the internet, there's some variation (for example: [13], [14], [15]). The use of circa is always a good get out in these cases, unless you can be very sure. qp10qp (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by members of WikiProject Turkey
|
---|
|
- Comment I grouped comments by members of WikiProject Turkey in a collapse box because of the potential canvassing issue discussed above. Whether or not their support votes should be taken into account is for the FL director to decide. --BomBom (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Aramgar
|
---|
Otherwise, good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Content issues have been resolved. Good work on this important topic. Aramgar (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent list! Very informative lead and a great table with clear descriptions. I really like that they all have images and tughras. You seem to have taken care of everyone else's remarks, though I agree that a better source than Britannica should be used, if possible. Reywas92Talk 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - very very good indeed.
|
- Support an already excellent piece of work has been improved to an exceptional level during this process. Good work to both reviewers and contributing editors alike. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - a superb list, very well referenced, perfect format. Top draw, nice work! Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:24, 1 May 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 Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [19].
Kronos Quartet discography
I am nominating this for featured list because after peer review it seems to be a pretty decent list, and I am interested in its improvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Before I fully review, the format of the tables is not the standard used, it should be formatted as other discographies. Such as the FLs located here.--Truco 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those tables (I looked at a bunch of them before I got started) are predicated on chart success in their very layout, something which hardly applies to (contemporary) classical music: the table would be dashes for their main content. But The Make-Up discography has a different format from many others, and Neutral Milk Hotel discography is not unlike the one for Kronos. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that those two discographies wbecame Featured in late 2007. Since that time, around 50 other discographies have become Featured, albeit none of them of the same genre of music. Also, a Wikiproject has been established, WikiProject Discographies. Drmies, perhaps you could get some input from members there? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Started a thread. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate it. Truco referred me to the list of FL discographies, but there's a whole lot of em, and I didn't look at every single one; I certainly didn't look to see when any of them were featured. It would be helpful, in advance of any discussion on the thread you just opened, if I could get an idea of precisely which discography could function as a model, though I have to say, if it's 50 Cent discography then I don't really know what to do--the chart-heavy model simply isn't really relevant here. I went for another type of content: the verification of different elements and qualities of the record. Cannibaloki offered good suggestions in peer review, but he did not suggest that I change the format of the table, and I sure hope that it's not just the format of the table that determines the quality of an article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Truco 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Truco 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, the first time you referred me to some other discographies I didn't know what to look for, since a lot of those discographies were not like the ones above; instead, they were concerned with chart positions. In other words, I didn't know what you were pointing at, and that's why I remarked on genre. Now I know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables have to change, because you're arranging according to year and not title. The first column is mostly the one the list is arranged with. Plus having a uniform layout between all Discographies is sort of a push towards a better usability. User Drmies should state what he'll do, so that the nomination would show progress.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Truco 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Truco 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I probably won't support or oppose the nomination, but I have a few questions about the list. Why are the names of composers and musicians linked to within the "Title" field? Has Floodplain been released; if not shouldn't it have the "Released" field state "2009 (forthcoming)" like 2081. Also, shouldn't Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters link here? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They were linked as a leftover from the original, which was merely a list on the main article. I've taken care of those links now. Thanks for the Floodplain note; I've corrected that. The album is in pre-order and I'm waiting anxiously. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest the external links are transformed into generic citations, since almost all of the information seems to be sourced from there and is the only way anyone can verify the releases, catalogs, dates etc. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no--I got the release dates and catalog numbers from the Nonesuch website, and some of the others (soundtracks, etc) from Amazon whenever I could. The Allmusic list only has six titles, the Strings article is old and thus incomplete, and the Parker book has a bibliography, not a discography. I'll gladly make a generic note to the Nonesuch website, but there again, there's a difficulty: look at this, the entry for the Sigur Ros CD--it has the catalog number but not the date; the release dates are in the "ALSO FROM KRONOS QUARTET" menu on the right, and I wouldn't know how to cite that. What would you suggest I do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a "general" note on that model--thanks. I'm not happy with the vagueness of the Amazon reference (and I really dislike having to use that as a source), but that's the way it is. As time goes by, some more of this information will be filled in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the tables, all of them, and turned them into the preferred format. That was a very lengthy and tedious job...I need a beer. Now, the only place where I was a bit at a loss is the "contributions" section--there's a ton of info in the second cell (I hope I did it consistently for all of them, but right now I can't proofread anymore) but I can't rightly figure out how to do it and make it look better. I'll get to the reference(s) for the catalog info as soon as I can. Thanks for your feedback. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I made the tables sortable, if u don't mind. In any case wether sortable or not I support the promotion of this list to FL status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - is there any reason for the "notes" column to be sortable (I can't see anyone wanting to sort the notes into alphabetical order)? Also, the columns should retain consistent widths across all the tables. Oh, and the "contributions" table has a stray extra cell on the line for "Heat", which is making a very thin extra column appear at the far right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (In reverse order:) Thanks--it was the next one, actually. I'm glad you noticed it; after I got done with it I couldn't see straight anymore. I see that the width is not perfectly consistent, but I don't know why that is. In all honesty, I barely know how these tables work; if one of you could have a look that would be great (the second column has a fixed width and the first is nothing but years, so I figured they'd all end up the same way--plus, I copied and pasted them all from the one up on this page). No, they don't need to be sortable by notes, but I don't know how to fix that--perhaps Diaa, who was kind enough to make them sortable in the first place, can help here. Thanks for your comments! Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've sorted the table column width disparity issue, hope it looks OK. I support the FLC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "a string quartet playing "-->a string quartet that plays
- "The quartet's music is released on "-->The quartet's music has been released on
- "by composers like"-->by composers such as
- "their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998." "who's who" is a bit loose, can we have a quote for that?
- "besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams"-->and has contributed to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams
- "Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists," This is WP:OR; it needs to be rephrased.
- "ranked in the "-->ranked on the
- "The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the" Inconsistent subject verbs, you use "has been" but "were the" (has is singular, were is plural).
- In the notes, single sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
- Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
- Publication titles (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, use the
work=
field for the title of the paper instead ofpublisher=
. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've taken care of all your comments, incl. the wikilinks--there's a lot of red on the page now (I've been working on individual articles for the albums, but that's a lot of work). Oh, I disagree (grammatically) on your 2nd remark and have not changed that. (And the who's who thing, that was a quote--I put quotation marks around it.) Thanks for that ref template bit--if only I'd realized that before... I haven't yet taken care of your sentence fragment comment but I'll get on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- 'The discography of the Kronos Quartet, a string quartet playing contemporary classical music founded by violinist David Harrington in 1973, includes numerous albums, compilations, and contributions to others' releases.' || 1)'playing' --> that plays 2)'numerous' should be replaced with the actual values
- done
- 'Since 1978 the quartet has been based in San Francisco, California.' || 1)Comma after '1978'
- I disagree--it's a short phrase and a comma is not required.
- That does not matter, all grammar rules apply to all complete sentences. A pause is needed after 1978, this is for all statements like this.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to explain to you that that is not a grammatical rule. At best, it's a rule of usage that after an introductory clause, such as a prepositional phrase, a comma can be applied. Please don't try to tell me that such comma usage is part of grammar, since it isn't--at most its style, and all the style manuals agree with me here: after a short introductory phrase one is not required to use a comma. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Early recordings by the quartet contain contemporary classical music and adaptations of more popular music, such as jazz and even rock and roll.' || 1)Unlink Jazz and Rock and Roll, they are common genres and do not need to be linked 2)remove 'even' its POV
- done--though I don't see why I should de-link these.
- 'Since the 1980s, and especially with the release of Cadenza on the Night Plain, written as a collaboration between composer Terry Riley and the quartet, much of the quartet's repertoire and album releases contain music written especially for them, by composers like Terry Riley, Kevin Volans, Henryk Górecki, and Ástor Piazzolla; their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998.' || This just needs to be reworded, its a run-on (possibly split)
- Sorry, it's not a run-on (note the semicolon). But I'll split it.
- 'Kronos has recorded five soundtracks (music composed by Philip Glass, Clint Mansell, and Lee Brooks), including the score for the 1998 music for the silent movie Dracula, besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams.' || 1)No need to state the composers here 2)What does 'including the score' mean? 3)I recommend splitting this sentence or rewording it as well.
- I'm keeping Philip Glass in because this is, after all, the lead to an article and should state something about the importance of the subject. Philip Glass is one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, and that they recorded his music on such things as soundtracks goes to notability. The sentence is reworded.
- That does not matter, unless you give composers for all albums mentioned in the lead, then you can keep it, if not its best to remove it per consistency purposes.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of them are among the most influential composers of the 20th century. In a lead you pick the most salient, the most significant details. You don't give Billboard rankings for each album, but if there's a #1 you'd mention that. I left Philip Glass in there for the same reason.
- 'Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists, especially pop artists, such as Joan Armatrading, Dave Matthews Band, Andy Summers, Nelly Furtado, and Nine Inch Nails.' || The first part is POV, how do you know its their interest? Remove sentence or reword it.
- done (see Dabomb's comments above)
- 'The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the performing artist for Steve Reich's Grammy-winning 1988 composition Different Trains.' || This is really not needed because its not in the main list/tables itself.
- done
- Table/list
- The notes need to be copyedit because some of the notes are not complete sentences and the periods need to be removed from them.
- Dabomb said the same thing. I'd like to know why--why do sentence fragments not require periods? In any published piece of writing they do. Moreover, it'll give rise to inconsistencies; some cells (like the third) have two fragments. Surely they should be separated by something, and if that something is, for instance, a semicolon, then you have punctuation in the middle but not at the end. Sentence fragments in tables are acceptable since information needs to be economical, and rephrasing all fragments into complete sentences is awkward and wordy. Look at Music of Bill Evans--two fragments, then a balanced compound sentence containing two independent clauses. Turning a fragment like "With Jim Hall and Eddie Gomez" into a sentence would be very wordy.
- Okay, which is why we're telling you to remove the periods. In all featured lists, its encouraged to do so because they are not complete sentences and a statement like "It was great." is not acceptable. Yes you're right its too wordy to make into complete sentences, which is why the solution is removing the periods.
- So, look at "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)." Do you want me to remove both periods, and produce "Compositions by Thelonious Monk With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? OK, so just the last, "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? That looks weird also. In this case, since both fragments are short, I could change to "Compositions by Thelonious Monk; with Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" but that doesn't work for all the entries--it won't work very well for the next one. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first note, although it is a quote, is used in POV-ish manner, possibly paraphrase the quote or remove it.
- With all due respect, if a critic says something like that about your first release, it's pretty notable. The notes in this discography also substitute for the lack of individual articles on the albums, and so they have both evaluation (all from RS, I may add) and information.
- Yes, but the section is for notes about the album not critical reception.--Truco 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "notes"--and many of them have "critical reception" (which is evaluation). If Leonard Feather gives five stars to an album of Evans songs recorded by a string quartet, is that not a "note about the album" and an evaluation to boot? As I said elsewhere, since there are no individual articles for these albums I tried to collect information from reliable sources, and many of these notes are reviews, yes. Now, if you want me to go through and take all of that information out, that would be sad. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- Billboard, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, TIME, Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Boston Globe, The Independent, and Washington Post are all literary published works, they need to be in italics.--Truco 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Dabomb's comments above. However, "literary published works" they are not. I've moved all the newspapers but not Billboard, since their website is not called "Billboard," and the same goes for a few other websites
- Comment This isn't really a requirement, but can something be done about all of those redlinks? Since they are a notable group, it makes sense that all of their albums should have pages. -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was told (above) that I should wikilink the most important albums (kind of difficult to decide): "Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links." So I did. I've gotten to work on that, but I don't want to create a ton of stubs; something like this one, Kronos Quartet Performs Alfred Schnittke: The Complete String Quartets, took quite a bit of time. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, Winter Was Hard, is another one. And another: Kronos Quartet Plays Sigur Rós. You see, I'm on it! Drmies (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One more redlink gone: Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain. That took hours! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Contemporary classical music that was founded by Harrington? The opening sentence is also a long snake. Solve this ambiguity problem by splitting with a semicolon and making two related statements.
- "others' releases": releases by other artists? groups? "similar groups"? Unsure.
- "The quartet's music is released on Nonesuch Records since 1985"—wrong tense.
The opening indicates that the whole lead needs a proper copy-edit. It's short, so surely there are word-nerds who are willing. I agree with Scorpion that the red links are obstructive. If you want a wishlist of articles, at least write stubs for them and there's the next mini project to shepherd them towards post-stub status. Unusual for international date format to be used for a US-base group, but I don't care a toss. Tony (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rearranged per your desire. I hope the "contributions" bit is more clear now; I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate. The tense in the Nonesuch sentence is in fact correct (I am a word-nerd, professionally). The international date format (from your "toss" I gather you're British) is becoming more and more accepted in the US and is, for instance, recommended by the MLA--thanks for noticing. I've heard different opinions now on the red links; I am inclined to agree with you, but I'm simply trying to follow orders here. Maybe I'll just find a middle way and remove half of them, and I'll write a few more stubs over the next few days. The problem with stubs, though, is that it lessens the likelihood of such an article being eligible for DYK status (five days from creation, an almost biblical measure), and after I got one for Terry Riley: Requiem for Adam I've become greedy for more. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
Changed "Billboard charts" to "various Billboard charts"; individual entries (in "notes") identify which charts.
|
- Weak support a very comprehensive list, but we still have a bare URL in ref 6 and a hyphen, instead of a en-dash, in ref 62. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 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.