The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) pr3 |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) pr1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in art competitions/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Olympic medalists in art competitions/archive1}} |
Revision as of 11:57, 8 April 2012
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:57, 8 April 2012 [1].
Birmingham City F.C. league record by opponent
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria. It follows the layout of the Luton Town and the recently promoted Liverpool league record by opponent FLs. Please feel free to pick holes... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Support Believe this meets requirements set by the Liverpool, Luton Town and recently passed Manchester United FLC. Nice work. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Seems like "their" or another word is missing from "Birmingham have recorded most league victories against Leicester City".
- Is a page number possible for reference 1? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support reluctantly I tried to catch out some of the maths, failed. Prose is good, can find no flaw. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just one query, ref 5 you have another link directly below it, but it's not formatted as a reference. Firstly, does the first ref not render the second one obsolete? Secondly, if it doesn't, why is it not formatted like the other refs? Other than the list is fantastic, great work. NapHit (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's two sources supporting the same fact, one source from each "side", as it were, Wimbledon Independent Supporters Association and MK Dons FC. See WP:CITEBUNDLE which explains why we might want to lump them together rather than having a string of separately cited sources. Admittedly, two refs on the end of a footnote doesn't clutter up any prose, but I've got into the habit of doing it that way when more than one source verifies the same thing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Great work. I redid the Wimbledon footnote but apart from that this looks positively fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the note. Don't think I could have got it more comprehensively wrong if I'd tried :-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [2].
List of Tranmere Rovers F.C. players
I am nominating this for featured list as part of a fun mission getting the Tranmere family of articles to a better standard (than the team). This list recently had a positive peer review, and seems of a comparable standard to the recent list on Watford (unlike the team). Hope you enjoy the read! U+003F? 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "It includes first-team appearances and goals in the in The Football League" - bit of a stutter there
- "have been expunged from the records are are not included" - duplicate word
- Image of Peter Farrell is non-free and does not have a FUR for this article
- That's about all I could find. I haven't checked that all the links point to the right articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment
- The lead image can and probably should be larger -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 02:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support assuming... the image issues brought up by Goodraise are dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments. Encouraging to see that this list had a decent peer review.
hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments'
NapHit (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review:
For File:Tranmere Rovers 27 August 1921.jpg, File:Johnny Campbell.jpg, File:Jimmy Moreton.jpg, and File:Tommy Stuart.jpg, "please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was."Goodraise 22:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Additional comment: This is only necessary because the images are hosted on Commons (as opposed to images stored locally in the database of the English Wikipedia). As far as the English Wikipedia is concerned, these images appear to be free enough and properly tagged. Goodraise 20:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F? 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done There was no clear consensus over on commons -- some thought {{PD-UK-unknown}} appropriate and some not. Thus I've duplicated the images locally, using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} which is definitely acceptable. U+003F? 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. As suggested, I've brought it up there. U+003F? 15:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- {{PD-UK-unknown}} can only be used if "the author cannot be ascertained by reasonable enquiry." At this point, I'm not convinced that you have exhausted all reasonable means. Somebody may still hold the copyright for these pictures, and that's not acceptable. Then again, I'm not an expert on UK copyright law. You could ask (for example at Commons:Village Pump) for input from someone more knowledgeable. Goodraise 20:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think. I must confess I wasn't entirely sure what was wanted here. Are those descriptions sufficient, would you say? U+003F? 17:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [3].
List of Olympic medalists in art competitions
I am nominating this for featured list because, after working on it for the past several days and carefully reviewing the Featured List criteria, I believe that it meets the standards. This is my first time working at FLC but I based this article off the examples set by other "List of Olympic medalists in..." Featured Lists, with of course some necessary adaptations since this is a rather unique event in terms of modern Olympic history. Canadian Paul 19:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - Interesting list wasn't even aware art competitions were in the olympics, so this has been an enlightening read.
NapHit (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments - the image captions need to lose the periods if they're not complete sentences, which right now are only the lead, Alfréd Hajós, and Walter W. Winans images. You should also consider archiving the online (non-pdf) references with webcitation.org or web.archive.org and the archiveurl/archivedate= parameters - if those websites ever go down, you could lose all your references. Interesting list; I never knew about the art competitions, and given that you can easily see a bias towards to hosting country's artists I can see why it needed to be dropped. --PresN 19:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (e/c with PresN)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other than archiving the URLs, which I will look into tomorrow, I believe that I have addressed all of the other concerns. Canadian Paul 19:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:45, 8 April 2012 [4].
List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2011 (U.S.)
I am nominating this for featured list because... I contributed the page through whole the year, not constantly though. However, in the end I wrote the lead and I think it really can pass Wikipedia's FL criteria. I am a Rihanna fan, and she was successful on the Hot 100 this year, so for that I will be really happy If I make this a FL.— Tomica (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Tomica, I applaud you for your efforts on this article. Great to see you doing something different for a change! For me, the lead is not exactly "brilliant" yet, and could use some re-organizing and copy editing. The list is not ready yet, but I'll be happy to have another look once issues have been addressed. Cheers, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] More comments:
Not yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] The dates in the table only probably need nbsps or you can just wrap the dates with {{nowrap}}. You can take a look at User:Wikipedian Penguin/Sandbox 5 while it lasts to get what I'm talking about, but there's probably no need so who cares. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
Support if there is no consensus to merge this at the end of the day. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why is Rolling In The Deep wikilinked twice in the lead? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments I did some tweaks in the lead today. Hope those help. My concern (major one) is this sentence about Adele: She became the first solo female to have two songs spend at least five weeks at number one in one calender year. Is it true? Can it be verified? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps it's just me but the lead is a little confusing with regard to what actually constitutes a number one in a given year, what constitutes weeks at the top in a given year, what constitutes multiple chart-topping entries/duration/non-consecutive weeks etc. I won't oppose right now but I certainly have concerns over what this all means. And there's little-to-no point in directing me to another list. I want to understand this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A rephrase of this whole "excluded" number one is in order. I would suggest something along the lines of "There were fourteen different number-one singles the charts in 2011, one of which, Katy Perry's Firework, topped the charts the previous year." or something. No need for this "and so is excluded" because it blantently isn't excluded, it's in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comments by Status
- Would it hurt to have them sortable? I think it would be nice for the reader to see in the chart how many times one artist appeared. — Status {talkcontribs 17:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and properly tagged. Goodraise 15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - not super-comfortable that every single reference is to Billboard, but I guess that's the way the other Billboard FLs do it. You need a comma after "Firework" in the lead. I also strongly recomend that you archive the references via webcite or web archive (and the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= paremeters in the references) - while not an FLC criteria, if the websites ever go away or change to lose the information (like, say, every last link in the 2008 FL) then you end up with a completely unsourced article. Also, what's up with the merge tag at the top? It doesn't link to an active discussion, but an older section links to a months-old discussion that never went anywhere. I don't think the list can be promoted with that going on, regardless of supports here. --PresN 19:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all thanks to all who supported. As a nominator I really don't like that adding the tag came right now. Its obvious that lists by year should be kept and the the 2010's one merged or deleted. The US charts have been written in separate lists since the start of Wikipedia, so I don't see the reason for creating one article for a decade. However, okay, its right to wait. — Tomica (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN on the fact that this shouldn't be promoted until the merge tag situation works itself out. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new seems to have appeared in the merge discussion there for the past two weeks. Could someone organise its closure so we can close this candidate? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Who should be able to close that discussion? — Tomica (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Any independent admin would do. i.e. no-one featuring in either this or that process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:05, 4 April 2012 [5].
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Waqar Younis
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list meets the FL criteria. It is based upon existing FL List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram... Zia Khan (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Image review: All used images appear to be free and are properly tagged as such. Goodraise 13:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments from Harrias talk
|
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments would he have had an opportunity to play in T20I? I doubt it but worth the question since a fifer is entirely possible in that format and we don't have it covered/mentioned at all here. "He took 3 consecutive" should be 3->three. Sorting by wickets which are the same (e.g. all five wicket matches, all six wicket matches etc) I'd expect to see in then sort by the fewest/most runs conceded. Don't think Ian Botham was Sir Ian Botham when he was part of a fifer in 1992. Finally, consistency with linking (or not) ESPNCricinfo in the refs is needed. I see it linked in 3 and 9 and 12 but not elsewhere. Also, the SHOUTING in ref 5 needs to be addressed, and the consistency of the Cricinfo publisher needs work in ref 41, along with the extra "test" in ref 23. Otherwise, I'd support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.