No edit summary |
The Rambling Man (talk | contribs) →Nominations: note |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kylie Minogue singles discography/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kylie Minogue singles discography/archive1}} |
||
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list--> |
|||
==Older nominations== |
|||
<!-- THIS SECTION SHOULD CONTAIN LISTS |
|||
THAT HAVE BEEN NOMINATED AT LEAST 20 DAYS |
|||
AGO. IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS |
|||
ON THOSE NOMINATIONS WHICH ARE STALLING--> |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by David Gower/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by David Gower/archive1}} |
||
Line 38: | Line 45: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Washington/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Governors of Washington/archive1}} |
||
<!--New nominations go at the top of the list--> |
<!--New nominations go at the top of the "Nominations" list--> |
||
==Nominations for removal== |
==Nominations for removal== |
Revision as of 20:59, 13 March 2011
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting. Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects |
Featured list tools: | ||||
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: |
Nominations
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:38, 14 March 2011 [1].
List of channels on Zattoo
- Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list received a strong clean-up by me. I C&P this list into my sandbox and pasted back to this list. With the help of Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves, the history of the sandbox was merged with this article. Hopefully this will be promoted, as I see no single item that is against the criteria.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 06:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead needs serious English-speaker copyedit (you've been told this sort of thing before)... e.g.
- "It is availabe, besides on computer, " typo, poor grammar.
- done
- "rate to 1,2 MBps. In opposition to the standard channels, the high quality have got the" - 1.2 not 1,2. Second sentence is grammatically bad.
- done
- "Since 2007 the countries Poland and Austria were expected to be included, but they since have not been added" - two "since" in the same sentence is poor.
- done
- These were just examples. The whole lead is in need of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is availabe, besides on computer, " typo, poor grammar.
- Star TV is a dab.
- I used dabsolver shortly after I nominated this list.
- I think you're mis-using the caption function of the table, how does "Source" help screen-readers/others understand what's actually in these tables?
- Any suggestion?
- Channel Name->Channel name.
- done
- "Zattoo Foreign Language Bundles". where is this referenced?
- in the lead
- Lots of dependency on first-party source (i.e. Zattoo themselves), frankps.net looks like a blog so can't see it passing WP:RS, and I'm not sure how www.iptv-anbieter.ch is reliable either.
- frankps.net is reliable: (from the about page)
...I have been writing for IsComputerOn and I was the editor of TheQtopian (a newssite about the embedded operating system Qtopia from Trolltech). But I now mostly write on this blog. I urge you to subscribe my blog’s RSS feed. If you are interested in more news from me, I also blog once in a while in Norwegian at frankps.posterous.com...My name is Frank Paul Silye (alias frankps), and I saw the light from a hospital lamp for the first time back in January 1974. My hometown is Flekkefjord, but I currently live in Oslo, Norway. I work as a computer engineer at Department of Sociology and Human Geography. If you want to learn a bit more about me, please have a look at the link section, my LinkedIn profile, my Last.fm profile and the pictures that I am constantly publishing on my Flickr account. It’s not often that I read books, but here is a few books that I have read. Oslo is a city that never sleeps, there is always something going on. More or less all culture events are listed at underskog.no, where you can also see what I and some of friends plan to attend (in Norwegian and account needed). - iptv-anbieter seems to be a trustworthy organisation. (from the impressum; please use Google Translator if you don't understand):
Hinweise zum Urheberrech Sehr gern werden Anfragen zur kostenpflichtigen Nutzung einzelner Elemente dieses Internetauftrittes (Text, Grafik, Layout, …) entgegen genommen. Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass alle Texte, medialen und multimedialen Inhalte (z.B. Grafiken, Bilder,…) sowie das Design der Domain www.iptv-anbieter.ch, dem Urheberrecht unterliegen. Das alleinige Recht der Vervielfältigung, Reproduktion, Verwendung einzelner Inhalte bzw. kompletter Seiten unterliegt allein dem Urheber (Maik Enrico Wildemann) bzw. durch ihn beauftragte Personen. Zuwiderhandlungen können sowohl strafrechtlich als auch zivilrechtlich verfolgt werden. Alle genannten Marken, sowohl in Wort und Bild, unterliegen dem Eigentum des jeweiligen Herstellers bzw. Unternehmens.
- frankps.net is reliable: (from the about page)
- Redlinked category not a good idea. Missing a g?
- done
- Second external link "Lists"->"lists".
- done
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- Is this even notable? The main article, Zattoo, is about 38 hours from becoming stubbed or even a redlink. Neither the old version of that or this give the sources to ensure notability... and even if Zattoo is notable, why is this?
- Yes it is. Google proves it. It is one of the most popular IPTV.
- And where are the independent reliable sources to show this? Why do we need both articles? Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not give you indie sources, that would be simply too much. There are a lot of sources in German, but a very few in English. So that explains that you don't see any third-party sources. What do you mean with "both" articles? The main article is (simply) about Zattoo and this about the channels.
- And where are the independent reliable sources to show this? Why do we need both articles? Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. Google proves it. It is one of the most popular IPTV.
- Why are you using in-line external links as sources, instead of proper footnotes?
- Don't quite understand you.
- Every table has, as its header, code that presents itself as a link and "Source". That's a) not the proper use of table headers, and b) against MOS for external links.
- OK done.
- Every table has, as its header, code that presents itself as a link and "Source". That's a) not the proper use of table headers, and b) against MOS for external links.
- Don't quite understand you.
- Why are the languages in grey and parenthesis?
- Because it is the {{Language icon}} template
- Why are you using this template? They are for indicating language in reference links, not for use in article body. Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So simply replace it with letters?
- Why are you using this template? They are for indicating language in reference links, not for use in article body. Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is the {{Language icon}} template
- Why use green for two things? Has a little "Skittlepedia" feel in the usage of colours.
- Don't see any problems with that, as I use keys.
- Concur the lede could use a rigorous copy-edit.
- I do think it is acceptable now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really isn't. It needs careful attention from a native speaker of English. Courcelles 12:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do think it is acceptable now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 10:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This nomiation is premature. I suggest a thorough copyedit by a native English speaker, a check of my handy list, possibly a peer review to check through notability and reliable sources, and then a renomination here in a few weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on! It has enough notability and has reliable sources, as I explained you above! The lead could be easily CE!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 12:47, 14 March 2011 (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 17:55, 24 April 2011 [2].
List of Los Angeles Clippers seasons
I am nominating this for featured list because...I worked on it these past two days and now I believe it's ready to be nominated. I welcome any comments/criticism/questions! Thank you! Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 08:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*First thing that catches my eye (cause I know how much of a pain it could be) is... what's sourcing the awards column? Courcelles 08:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose for a few technical issues...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like a very strong piece, which is surprising for a low importance article. Great job! Soxrock24 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made my usual minor fixes, but this list meets the criteria. A couple comments that aren't dealbreakers:
- Consider removing the font size parameter from key; it would enhance accessibility slightly and there is no aesthetic disadvantage (IMO)
- The lead seems a little short. Of course, the Clippers are one of the NBA's less-successful teams, which means they are light on achievements, but then again, perhaps that might be worth discussing in a couple sentences (if you can find stuff in reliable sources)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A good model for how to structure these lists for limited existence/limited success teams that are harder to expound on. I would add a couple things namely (1) Their overall postseason record to the 2nd lead paragraph, (2) Their overall record at the bottom of the last paragraph, and (3) One more image if you can find one. Maybe Elton Brand with a caption about winning the Sportsmanship award in their last playoff season? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I added the Braves' record to the 2nd paragraph because that paragraph talks about the Braves. Overall record is added, as well. I didn't want to add Brand because I don't have a free pic of him in a Clipper uniform. I added Cassell instead. Let me know what you think.--Cheetah (talk) 03:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Human characters in Sesame Street/archive1
- 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 18:42, 25 April 2011 [3].
List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium
- Nominator(s): Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the article is based on similar featured lists such as [[4]. I think the article covers all aspects of the topic and is ready FL status. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
;Comments
Nice article, already looked it over at the PR, but a couple of minor points:
|
- Support all my issues with the article have been resolved, nice work. Harrias talk 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and has played host to Ranji Trophy matches, Indian Premier matches, as well as being a Test, One Day International and Twenty20 International venue." The flow of this from beginning to end isn't as good as it could be. Try removing the comma after "Ranji Trophy matches" and the parenthetical bit, then put "and" in there. That seems like the simplest thing to do to fix this.- Changed per suggestion. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The publisher of reference 4 (Indian Express) should be italicized since it's a printed publication.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basic question Is "List of international cricket centuries at <stadium>" a useful/encyclopedia-worthy topic of discussion? As a counter-example, would "List of hat-tricks scored at Anfield" be a encyclopedic topic? Put in another way, what is to be gained by arranging 100s stadium-wise?—indopug (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO, it is encyclopaedic. For wikiusers interested in cricket, it goes to show historic info of major venues as well as of major cricketers (such as List of international cricket centuries by David Gower - a one of the many FL's on the topic). Withregards to Anfield, according to me it would depend on whether its a major international football venue - and whether a hat-trick is as big (eg. there has been only 1 ODI hat-trick, none in tests at the Brabourne hence it would not qualify for a wiki list article) - Im not active on WP Football so would not know much abt tht. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article talks about 17 Ranji finals whereas the main Brabourne article has it as 16. From a quick check, 17 seems to be the correct figure. Please confirm anyway. Tintin 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Cricketarchive.com [5] - 1938, 1942, 1944, 1945, 1949, 1952, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1964, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 2008 (plate group final). Thanks for the corrections. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 09:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Courcelles 20:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
I find this sentence, at the end of the first paragraph, a bit confusing - The stadium hosted five matches including the final of the ICC Champions Trophy in 2006. Why is this mentioned? The lines before this mention the first Test, ODI and T20I matches which are obviously important events for the ground. What is special about these five matches that justifies mentioning them alongside the inaugural matches? If there's something important about them (I'm guessing because they were champions trophy matches) make the reason clear, and include the match format as well for clarity. Other than that, the article looks good to me.Chamal T•C 14:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this work now? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:26, 2 April 2011 [6].
Five Finger Death Punch discography
- Nominator(s): Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets FL criteria. Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Bad start in the lead; don't write in boldface, don't start with sentences like "This is a list" or "The discography of"; instead start like this: "Five Finger Death Punch is an American heavy metal band formed in California. Its discography currently consists of two studio albums, one extended play, nine singles and five music videos."
- Music videos: "Never Enough" unreferenced
- Other appearances: "Hard to See", TNA Reaction unreferenced
- The band's follow-up album War Is the Answer, was released on September 22, 2009 selling 44,000 copies in its first week debuting at #7 on the Billboard 200. — wrong punctuation: The band's follow-up album War Is the Answer was released on September 22, 2009, selling 44,000 copies in its first week, debuting at #7 on the Billboard 200.
- War Is the Answer has gone on to sell over 340,000 copies in the United states. — United States
More comments later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The major issues is that the lead is unreferenced, even if some items should be referenced, most notably the sales.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 07:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I agree with GreatOrangePumpkin. Many facts, like sales and band formation, are unsourced.
- Please do not use "#" to denote number.
- Begin with something like "The discography of Five Finger Death Punch, an American heavy metal band, consists of..."
—Novice7 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Third one not done. It's okay though. More comments:
- Many online sources are italicized. They should not be. Only print sources must be italicized.
- For MTV references it should be MTV. MTV Networks (Viacom) and not MTV.com
- Back to tables, can you expand CD and DI on its first occurrence?
- If possible, add a column to the studio albums table (maybe "Sales and certifications"). Add the certifications from RIAA. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
- Third one not done. It's okay though. More comments:
- Fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
—Novice7 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, nicely done, but peak positions should not be referenced in the lead, as they are already below. Ref 1 needs
format=video
.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fixed. Pantera5FDP (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Mild oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose CFORK. It has 2 albums, 1 ep, and 9 singles. How can this not be easily merged into the parent article? Two albums does not make a stand-alone article. Nergaal (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2011 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:37, 21 March 2011 [7].
Earthquakes in 1985
- Nominator(s): Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the criteria, showcases the topic in depth, covering all of the earthquakes that year, and is properly sourced. Thanks, and comments are of course welcome Diego Grez (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Just quickly passing by, haven't read in detail.
- What is the inclusion criterium? Why not mention it in the lead?
- For some earthquakes (e.g. the March 3 Chile earthquake) you list the main eartquake and a number of other obviously related earthquakes ("aftershocks"?). I think that these aftershocks should be marked somehow as such.
- The main list appears unreferenced.
- Some of the short (one sentence) paragraphs of the lead should be merged with others.
- Not sure what the second image (church of Santa Cruz) shows with regard to earthquakes.
- There is one broken link and five links to disambig pages.
bamse (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a map showing the location of all the earthquakes of that year (or all earthquakes mentioned in the list) would be more instructive than the maps of just two earthquakes in my opinion. bamse (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
- The first sentence of the article should probably begin with "According to United States Geological Survey, ..."
- In the list itself dates should be separated from magnitudes by mdashes, not ndashes as now.
- I do not like the style: poorly written incomplete sentences. The list should be either rewritten in the form of prose or converted to a table.
- Comments
- I think a table would be a better format, the current layout looks rather messy
- Should show the country name along with the flags. Not everyone recognize them. Use {{flagcountry}} instead
- The dates are hard to see. Should bold them.
—Chris!c/t 21:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Sorry, but I feel that a list with much of its writing copied from a public domain source shouldn't be made featured. An article of similar closeness to a PD source would be quickly declined at FAC, and I don't think FLC should act any differently. PD copies may have their place on Wikipedia (with proper attribution), but that doesn't mean they deserve a star. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose leaving PD issues asides, I am sure this list can be reorganized into a sortable table (date, location, magnitude, casualities, notes). Nergaal (talk) 04:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Per nominator request The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:45, 24 April 2011 [8].
List of Watford F.C. players
Want to know who Watford's all-time top appearance maker is? Oldest and youngest players? Or are you simply hankering to see the flag of Saint Lucia in a football article? For all that and more, read on...
There were outstanding issues from the previous FLC a year ago. In terms of redlinks, over 50 articles have been created in the last year, while four (bluelinked) players have joined the list. To keep myself sane while I did the cross-checking yesterday, I did a complete count. As of this morning, the tally was 265 bluelinks, 51 redlinks, and 22 players who don't meet our notability guidelines; more than 5 in 6 notable players have articles, and that tally is rising. I've taken the other comments from last year's FLC on board too, as well as experience gained from a subsequent FLC and FLRC save, and subsequent reviews of other lists. In my view, the result is more useful, comprehensive and easily verifiable. —WFC— 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
In the table, Refs in Notes / Refs should be decapitalized. Also, I'm unsure if this should have the spaces or not; I don't work much with slashes myself, so I wouldn't know what the MoS prescribes.- Done.
Bibliography should be in alphabetical order, I believe.- I've done this, but could you point me in the direction of the MoS for it for future reference?
Spell out RSSSF as the publisher in references 59–60 and 62. I can live with FIFA being in abbreviated form, but RSSSF is something that many people aren't likely to recognize at first glance.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done, as you're the second person to raise it. —WFC— 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL criteria. Incidentally, I looked in WP:FOOT and it doesn't mention anything on alphabetizing bibliography sections. I may have been wrong on that one; if so, it wouldn't be the first time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, as you're the second person to raise it. —WFC— 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Since moving from a ground in Cassio Road in 1922, Watford have played home matches at their Vicarage Road stadium." Common knowledge to any fan of the club? Who knows. Needs a source.
- Flabby language-"On its resumption" Its? The First World War or the Southern League? (Yeah, yeah... I know. But consider this a request to generally tighten the prose.)
- "At the start of 1920–21, Watford joined the Football League Third Division, and transferred to the Third Division South when the league was reorganised the following season. They have played in the Football League ever since, with the exception of 1939–1946, when competitive football was suspended due to the Second World War, and the 1999–2000 and 2006–07 seasons, when they competed in the Premier League." Sources for any of that?
- "His corresponding totals for Watford in the Football League (416 appearances and 148 goals) are also unsurpassed." Again, tighten up the prose, this reads as if his numbers were achieved at Watford, and are the highest in League history, which is not supported by the source.
- Jackett: The source confirms his cap number... but not that he was a one-club man, as claimed.
- Scope row and scope col markup is needed.
- Why are there pictures in the refs and not with the table? I'm not sure pics in refs like this complies with MOS.
Courcelles 09:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone here? Courcelles 02:00, 16 April 2011 (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 Dabomb87 00:00, 8 April 2011 [9].
List of Atlanta Braves first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29 of 31. Only the White Sox and the Giants to go in this Featured Topic drive. Though there's no hall-of-famers here, this is a more accomplished list of players than some of these have been. Enjoy. Courcelles 01:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Now to go work on the White Sox list. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, there's enough room for an extra picture addition if you desire; both Wainwright or Heyward would be good options there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Our picture of Wainwright isn't very good, (being mostly of his back) but Heyward is a good addition, and there's something interesting to say about him, too. Courcelles 16:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a further comment, there's enough room for an extra picture addition if you desire; both Wainwright or Heyward would be good options there. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - best I could do...!
- Shouldn't "a no hitter" be "a no-hitter"?
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen it both ways, but since our article is at no-hitter, makes sense to do it that way. Done. Courcelles 20:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support gah, very good indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
After "Two selections have come from outside the 50 United States", shouldn't there be a colon instead of a comma? Also, I'm not sure the number is needed with the country there.There are a couple of capitalized Awards that could stand to be in blue with their respective links.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done both. The reason I have "50 United States" is because the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is part of the United States, so without the 50 the sentence becomes a bit nonsensical (or requires a discussion of the political status of the COPR.) Courcelles 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above: having some quantification of the importance of the first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the median salary would be nice. Nergaal (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (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 03:24, 19 March 2011 [10].
List of Oakland Athletics first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidental good timing with the Athletics' manager list below! So close to finishing this topic. One question for the reviewers: How much (if at all) should I add a mention of Moneyball to this article? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: "21 players came" Don't start a sentence with a numeral. Only thing I saw. Courcelles 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As should not be surprising, with 29 of 31 lists written, the formula is pretty well down. Courcelles 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support all my minor issues dealt with with alacrity, most appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Comma would be nice after "They also drafted Ariel Prieto in 1995"."Two Athletics' first-round picks have won championships with the franchise." Nope. That number is at least three. Walt Weiss was on the A's 1989 team, and his Baseball-Reference page clearly indicates that he played in the World Series against the Giants.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Good catch, I swear I scan through every pick-page for players drafted before a given WS win for a franchise, I must've missed him. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 13 March 2011 (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 not promoted by Giants2008 20:26, 2 April 2011 [11].
List of number-one indie hits of 2009 (UK)
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first attempt at writing a FL, so please forgive me if I am making loads of elementary mistakes. I am nominating this for featured list because I have checked it against the criteria and one or two other FLs on similar subjects, and I believe that it currently meets them. The UK Indie Chart receives far less commentary than the singles and albums charts, so there isn't quite as much to say about it, but I have tried to make the lead as informative and engaging as possible. I have also tried to use as many online refs as I can find, but quite a lot of the number ones are cited using back issues of the the magazine ChartsPlus as offline refs. I hope that this is okay. A Thousand Doors (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments firstly, welcome to FLC, nice to see you here.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Oppose CFORK. The list has no other information than dates, name and artist. Being such a bare list, I see no reason not to merge it into List of number-one indie hits of 2000s (UK). The product would have somewhere between 100 and 200 entries, without any extra details => completely manageable. Nergaal (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough, but why is that not also true for, say, Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (U.S.), Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums of 2003 or Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)? To be honest, I actually think that combining all the charts into one huge chart could conceivably work well, but I've got no information about what singles were number one 2000–2005, so the list could be largely incomplete. A Thousand Doors (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [12].
List of Oakland Athletics managers
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, similar to other baseball manager featured lists. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them, except the ref 4 (now ref 5) item which is a function of the reference template. I also addressed the 2nd comment a little differently, since the fact that they started playing in 1901 is effectively mentioned earlier. Rlendog (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's counter-intuitive, but in this case, you actually need to remove the . from "Norton & Co." in the template, it's the only way to kill the ".." problem. One of those rare cases where what looks wrong in the edit window actually produces what you want in the rendered page. (PS< already did it, to make sure it worked!) Courcelles 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Key: Very minor point, but I don't think "League Championships" or the "Championships" after World Series should be capitalized, as they aren't really proper nouns.Another minor thing, but reference 37 has a hyphen in the title, while the other Retrosheet cites have em dashes. Shouldn't 37 get a dash as well?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 11:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Good work. Courcelles 00:57, 17 March 2011 (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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [13].
Latin Grammy Award for Best Female Pop Vocal Album
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it resembles previous work on the lists for Best New Artist and Producer of the Year, it is fully referenced and expanded to achieve this status. Thank you to all reviewers for your hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support I found the dablink here, but it was either an error, or it was resolved.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"Spanish singer Rosario Flores hold the record for most nominations with five". "hold" → "holds".
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please double-check the name of Ms. Aguilera in the table. Last time I checked her first name had nine letters including an h.
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- -) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Since its inception, the award category has had several name changes. In 2000 the award was known as Female Pop Vocal Performance. The following year it was awarded as Female Pop Vocal Album, and starting from 2002, it has been presented as Best Female Pop Vocal Album." -- What is the source for this statement?
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Most recently the award was given to Canadian performer Nelly Furtado with her album Mi Plan." -- Per WP:DATED, please replace "Most recently" with "In 2010"
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edge3 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's another comment above which you haven't addressed. It's located amidst GreatOrangePumpkin's feedback Edge3 (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw it, but I did not find that redirect. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is resolved. Jaespinoza (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw it, but I did not find that redirect. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The lead seems to be sprinkled with random winners. We have the opening winner (Shakira) and her other win (fine), and then Christina Auguilera. Why is her win notable? Slapped onto the end of the lead is Nelly Furtado's win. Illogical place, and not especially notable.
- I tried to mentionate the most winners possible. I also named Laura Pausini as the most awarded singer, Rosario Flores (two-time winner, and most nominated), Christina Aguilera, Shakira and Nelly Furtado. Do I need to add Kany Garcia and Olga Tañón? Jaespinoza (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you should remove Aguilera and Furtado.
- Could you add Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album to the see also links?
- Yes I could, but is there any particular reason to do it? Since there is also a Latin Grammy Award for Pop Album by a Duo or Group that I could include. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, include both. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I still do it? This list is already listed as featured. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I included both. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I still do it? This list is already listed as featured. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, include both. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 17 April 2011 (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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [14].
Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists with FL status. There are several other Grammy-related lists at FLC currently, though only one that is nominated by me (and it has four votes offering support). Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- No dab links, no dead ELs
- A Flock of Seagulls, The Allman Brothers Band and other bands beginning with 'the' should use {{sortname}}.
Otherwise, looks pretty good! Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. They should be sorted alike their name; since "The" is capitalized, it is a component of the proper noun, in this case the name of the band. For example: "The Beatles" is correct, wereby "the Beatles" is incorrect, as the "the" is a piece of the substantive.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the "The" is part of the name, but anything in English is sorted disregarding words such as "a" and "the". You can that the band's (A Flock of Seagulls) article is categorised as "Flock of Seagulls, A". Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the Manual of Style address this issue? Personally, I prefer for "the" to be included in sort commands for the reason GreatOrangePumpkin mentioned, but I know Adabow's reasoning is also common practice. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest thing I could find was WP:SORTKEY, which says "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are one of the most common reasons for using sortkeys". Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am not mistaken, GOP, TRM and myself all prefer to leave the sort commands alone. If this is not the case, please let me know. I am willing to make changes if consensus proves otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The closest thing I could find was WP:SORTKEY, which says "Leading articles—a, an, and the—are one of the most common reasons for using sortkeys". Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the Manual of Style address this issue? Personally, I prefer for "the" to be included in sort commands for the reason GreatOrangePumpkin mentioned, but I know Adabow's reasoning is also common practice. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Classic question now. Nationality flags don't align with the awardee names. Confusing, potentially.
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – "The award was first presented in at the 22nd Grammy Awards...". "in" should be removed from this sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport – A question. I asked this on another FLC. Is Rock on the Net reliable? Take a look at this. Otherwise, everything looks okay to me. References are properly formatted, images are good, the prose and table also look good. Novice7 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I recall being told that Rock on the Net was reliable (perhaps by Dabomb?). However, I try to use Rock on the Net as a last resort and will be on the lookout to replace ROTN sources. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: See discussion. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support- The list looks great just one issue for reference 24 you need to cite Hearst Corporation as the publisher. Yet other then that great work.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Designated "Hearst Corporation" as the publisher of the San Francisco Chronicle in four instances. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comments
- Should be using the scope col/scope row parameters for accessibility. See the Atlanta Braves draft-picks list a little up the FLC page for an example.
- I still don't fully understand this scope/accessibility stuff. Also, my understanding is that this is not required for FL status. Of course, I want lists to be the best they can be. If this is now required, is there a link describing what needs to be done to meet requirements (or preferences) regarding accessibility? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a very good tutorial, but FLC has been moving towards looking for things described in the "overview of basics" section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial to be implemented. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This still needs doing. Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this concern been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response. I tried formatting the table back in March without success (using the preview feature, no saved edits), but I admit and regret that I have neglected further attempts as I have been very busy in "real life" and much of my time at WP has been spent establishing the Grammy Awards task force for WikiProject Awards and prizes. I will try to tackle this again when I have the time--or, if someone is more familiar with this scope/accessibility stuff, feel free to provide instructions or an example that I can follow. Once established, I'd be happy to post the example on the Grammy Awards task force page so that the same table format can be used on other lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- RexxS (talk · contribs) is very good with accessibility issues; you may want to ask him for help. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!
Doing...--22:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)- I think I fixed it. Was it just the col/row headers that need doing, or are there other WP:ACCESS issues? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rexx and Adabow took a stab at it. Thanks so much for your assistance. (I think I was trying to do more than was necessary during my previous attempts.) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM about the 'easter egg' links on the years. I'd rather see another column for the Grammy Award number explicitly from 22nd to 53rd, but it's not a deal-breaker, just that I think it would be an improvement. The table is as accessible as I can make it, as a caption would be clearly redundant - many thanks to Adabow for pitching in (I'll be able to quit this job now we've found a replacement ;). All the images have 'alt' text, so it seems to meet all we could wish for in complying with MOS:ACCESS. One small point: per MOS:FLAG, as the winners weren't actually representing the country, shouldn't we do without flags? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are against linking years to ceremony articles in the lead, I have no problem with that. I think adding an additional column to the table to display the Year in addition to the Ceremony would be too crowded. At least on this computer, the Nominees column already looks a little cramped. This list is more crowded than other Grammy lists, mostly because songwriter credits are also included, but I think the "easter egg" feature in the Year column certainly serves its purpose. As for the flags, this issue has been debated on multiple Grammy FLCs with the preference to keep the flags. My personal preference is to keep the flags, but I would respect if consensus preferred otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I don't think it's optimal to have any links that go to an article that isn't indicated by the linked text. There's a principle of 'least surprise' in designing links that should be applied wherever possible – I know you've placed an explanatory note at the bottom, but that's mitigation, not solution. However, my principal concern is that 1980 was the year of the 22nd Grammy Awards, but I have to make an effort to retrieve that piece of information. If I wanted to know what artist received the 50th Grammy Award for example, I can find that information, but it involves searching and reading tool-tips (assuming I have a user agent that displays tooltips). I understand your concern for the table "squashing" on low-res displays, but you have enough vertical space in each cell to place something the size of "22nd Award" below the year, if you decided to make that design choice. Alternatively, you could gather together all of the images that float along the right side of the table and make a gallery above or below the table which would free up some width. I'm not saying that's an improvement, because I like seeing the images near to the Award that they relate to; but if you view the current layout in 800x600 resolution (the minimum Wikipedia still supports), the table starts below the last image and there's loads of white space. As for the flags, I'm still not sure what the Nationality column is for, or if it's actually accurate. My passport says my nationality is a "British citizen", and I have no doubt that Sir Paul's does as well – he's even used as an example of when not to use a flag in MOS:FLAG. Anyway, I'm not asking you to make any changes, I just want reassurance that you've actually considered the other options and have made conscious design choices that have led to the present layout. Your view on what's best is at least as valid as mine, as we are often balancing against each other several competing considerations, such as accessibility, visual appeal, or usability. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are against linking years to ceremony articles in the lead, I have no problem with that. I think adding an additional column to the table to display the Year in addition to the Ceremony would be too crowded. At least on this computer, the Nominees column already looks a little cramped. This list is more crowded than other Grammy lists, mostly because songwriter credits are also included, but I think the "easter egg" feature in the Year column certainly serves its purpose. As for the flags, this issue has been debated on multiple Grammy FLCs with the preference to keep the flags. My personal preference is to keep the flags, but I would respect if consensus preferred otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TRM about the 'easter egg' links on the years. I'd rather see another column for the Grammy Award number explicitly from 22nd to 53rd, but it's not a deal-breaker, just that I think it would be an improvement. The table is as accessible as I can make it, as a caption would be clearly redundant - many thanks to Adabow for pitching in (I'll be able to quit this job now we've found a replacement ;). All the images have 'alt' text, so it seems to meet all we could wish for in complying with MOS:ACCESS. One small point: per MOS:FLAG, as the winners weren't actually representing the country, shouldn't we do without flags? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rexx and Adabow took a stab at it. Thanks so much for your assistance. (I think I was trying to do more than was necessary during my previous attempts.) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed it. Was it just the col/row headers that need doing, or are there other WP:ACCESS issues? Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!
- RexxS (talk · contribs) is very good with accessibility issues; you may want to ask him for help. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, and I sincerely apologize for the delayed response. I tried formatting the table back in March without success (using the preview feature, no saved edits), but I admit and regret that I have neglected further attempts as I have been very busy in "real life" and much of my time at WP has been spent establishing the Grammy Awards task force for WikiProject Awards and prizes. I will try to tackle this again when I have the time--or, if someone is more familiar with this scope/accessibility stuff, feel free to provide instructions or an example that I can follow. Once established, I'd be happy to post the example on the Grammy Awards task force page so that the same table format can be used on other lists. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this concern been resolved? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This still needs doing. Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a very good tutorial, but FLC has been moving towards looking for things described in the "overview of basics" section at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial to be implemented. Courcelles 04:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't fully understand this scope/accessibility stuff. Also, my understanding is that this is not required for FL status. Of course, I want lists to be the best they can be. If this is now required, is there a link describing what needs to be done to meet requirements (or preferences) regarding accessibility? --Another Believer (Talk) 04:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Although the article is not presented in the way that I might have chosen, it is still of high quality, meeting what we consider to be the standard for promotion as FL in my opinion. Any small improvements that might be implementable are well below the threshold for opposition. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
:I pay little attention to music notability, but is a Grammy nominated artist or Grammy-winning song really non-notable?
Courcelles 21:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 02:07, 15 April 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [15].
Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the format of existing FL List of Montserrat national football team results, I hope that this historical list meets the requirements. All the best everyone :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, any reason for the cut-off at 1899? Are you planning (suggesting?) a 1900 to 1949 list, a 1950 to 1999 list, a 2000 onwards list or something else? I only asked because I'm sure someone else will, in due course...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Scotland national football team results, many of these lists already exist, though none until now have graced FL's door. Courcelles 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that afterwards. Seems a little odd on the current split (for me) I suppose. The next 1900-1919 list has just 36 games in and stops in 1914 because of the First World War. Consider the fact we have some Medal of Honor lists or Knights Cross lists (or Prem League hat-tricks...!) with well over 100 entries. I guess it's fine, I just wondered if we really needed so many lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite happy/prepared to merge this one with the 1900-1919 list if it's deemed necessary. That would give a list with just over 100 entries, which seems to be about as many as we'd want to have on one list, and encompass all pre-WW1 matches, which seems a natural split. To clarify, I didn't create any of these articles, so I can't say on what basis the split was originally worked out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I understand. Let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite happy/prepared to merge this one with the 1900-1919 list if it's deemed necessary. That would give a list with just over 100 entries, which seems to be about as many as we'd want to have on one list, and encompass all pre-WW1 matches, which seems a natural split. To clarify, I didn't create any of these articles, so I can't say on what basis the split was originally worked out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that afterwards. Seems a little odd on the current split (for me) I suppose. The next 1900-1919 list has just 36 games in and stops in 1914 because of the First World War. Consider the fact we have some Medal of Honor lists or Knights Cross lists (or Prem League hat-tricks...!) with well over 100 entries. I guess it's fine, I just wondered if we really needed so many lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- much better now that it is merged
lead should talk about some of the huge attendances (five games had over 100k spectators!)- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since essentially most of these games were played in the British championship, there should be a table with the statistics on the placing Scotland got in these editions (how many times it finished 1st, 1-2, 2nd, 1-3, 2-3, 4th, etc.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the article should clearly point out that Scotland was the best rated team then (officially or not, it WAS)
- My point, though, is that at the time Scotland was not rated the best team in the world, because the ratings did not exist and such things simply were not discussed back then. Only well over 100 years later did someone decide that they had been the best rated team in this era. I'll see what other people think, but personally I don't believe it belongs in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sod it, I'll put it in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point, though, is that at the time Scotland was not rated the best team in the world, because the ratings did not exist and such things simply were not discussed back then. Only well over 100 years later did someone decide that they had been the best rated team in this era. I'll see what other people think, but personally I don't believe it belongs in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*A couple of things:
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Read through the list and spotted no problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made one small fix as I read, but this is in good shape. Courcelles 12:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (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 18:24, 26 March 2011 [17].
Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde
This is a fairly short list of all the listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde, which I believe meets the FL criteria. It has benefited from some early advice from Peter I. Vardy, on whose Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) this list was modelled. It has also received a peer review by Brianboulton. There may be a problem with accessibility in the table which I haven't been able to fix on my own (see WT:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)/Data tables tutorial# Sortability/unsortability and scope), so any advice there would be appreciated. --BelovedFreak 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- And I guess I'd sort "probably 18th C" before "mid-18th C".
- Could you give me a suggestion of when to sort the "probably"s to? At present they sort to eg. 1750, the same as the "mid-"s. I have a "probably early 18th century" sorting to 1710. It's messing with my head a bit now. --BelovedFreak 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd sort the "probably 18th C" to 1700. That is just my opinion though... Early stuff, would sort like you have... It's not critical. No major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give me a suggestion of when to sort the "probably"s to? At present they sort to eg. 1750, the same as the "mid-"s. I have a "probably early 18th century" sorting to 1710. It's messing with my head a bit now. --BelovedFreak 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Rod talk 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment A few comments and questions.
In the lead:
Table
Images
I hope these comments are understandable?— Rod talk 11:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Thanks for all your work. Maybe one day we will get to all the listed buildings!!!— Rod talk 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I must admit I'm starting small, but it would be great to see that happen! --BelovedFreak 09:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
St Johns Chapel: Period needed after "The chapel is on one storey and has arched windows with timber Y-tracery".The Manor: Add "in" to "This house was built 1895."?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Hassocks5489: I shall review this list in the next few days, once I return from a brief wikibreak. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Here are my comments and suggestions. A good, attractively presented list; all sorting, Google coordinates and references/links work correctly.
Some discussion of the interior timber-framing at 2 Market Place, which is a significant part of the list description, would be good; just a sentence or so, maybe. Likewise, a few words about the possibly late 17th-century staircase inside 25, 27, 29 and 31 Market Place, and the Jacobean interior of The Manor (staircase, gallery etc.). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. All of my comments have been addressed to a high standard. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And thanks again for the tips on what to add. --BelovedFreak 09:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets standards. No complaints from me. Courcelles 21:34, 23 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [18].
List of New England Patriots seasons
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a project that was a little different last week, and I decided to take a look at WP:FFL to see if I could do anything about a list listed there. Well, this is the result, originally a 2007 promotion and 2009 demotion due largely to referencing and colour usage, among other things. All comments awaited with anticipation. Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if one of the directors wants to move things around, the 2007 nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/New England Patriots seasons/archive1. Courcelles 16:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC |
---|
*Shameless opportunism I will review this, seasons lists are a somewhat of an interest of mine. But while I'm here, do you have any idea where I could track down more information on this guy's background in American football? —WFC— 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFC
Overall this looks decent. I'll be back with more over the next day or so. —WFC— 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from WFC
—WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Notable sources (such as the Toronto Star) should be linked on the first occurance. —WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a stylistic thing, and I absolutely can't stand turning the references section into a sea of largely useless bluelinks. Courcelles 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a couple of spot checks on the references tomorrow, and provided there are no problems there I'll be supporting. Thanks for the speedy responses. —WFC— 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spot checking didn't throw up any concerns. All other (substantive) points resolved. —WFC— 13:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be appropriate to have a statistics section with how far they got at the end of the season. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be very difficult to do, considering terms like "Divisional Playoffs" have, at times, been either the semi-finals or quarter-finals, the possibility of first-round byes, the aberration of 1982, and the lack of RS's that would help reduce this exercise from being OR. I've added some info about how many times they've reached the playoffs in total, and played in and won/lost a conference championship after the merge (A non-existent term before it), but the number of different playoff schemes used since 1970 is rather beyond this article (National Football League playoffs doesn't really do a great job of explaining the changes in terminology in places). Courcelles 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all the points in my "exhaustive commentary" (!!) have been resolved... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport – Did most of my reviewing before the FLC on the article's talk page.Noticed one more thing while re-reviewing: Note a says "The Season column links to an article about each season in the league." The list doesn't deal with just one league, since the Patriots have been in the AFL and NFL. The sentence could use some adjusting to reflect that.Otherwise, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the note, thanks for both of your reviews. Courcelles 02:40, 6 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [20].
List of Baltimore Orioles first-round draft picks
For part 27 of a 31-part series, we have the Baltimore Orioles first-round draft picks. The baseball project is almost done bothering you FLC regulars (with this topic, mwahaha). Anyway, everything checks out, and it looks the same as the other lists, so I don't expect any major problems.
For this list's fun fact, the team actually won the World Series three times in draft years, and you can see by high numbers when the team was an MLB power, and when they started their downward trend. As you can tell, they've been in the basement the past few years. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment - I think this is good work, but I think one statement is incorrect: "Bobby Grich (1967), who was with the franchise when they won the World Series in 1970, is the only pick to win a championship with the team." Didn't Rich Dauer win a championship with the 1983 Orioles? If so, I think the list needs to acknowledge that as well, similar to the color for Grich. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
CommentSupport –In "One pick, Gregg Olson (1988) has won the MLB Rookie of the Year award", there should be a comma after the year, and I wonder if "award" should be capitalized. It is in our article on the subject.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:54, 3 March 2011 (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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [21].
List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its does meet the FL criteria, as it tends to follow the format established for the List of Texas Tech Red Raiders bowl games FL. I chose this format as Alabama has competed in nearly sixty bowl games and the format set in both the List of Connecticut Huskies bowl games and List of Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games would be too long and redundant with information already in place in the individual bowl articles. All comments and critiques are greatly appreciated! Thanks. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 18:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 07:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- To a non-expert, there's no clear indication as to the significance of the various bowl games. Is the Sugar bowl better than the Orange or Cotton bowl? What is the difference?
:I will work to find a source stating the traditional "big" bowl games were the Rose, Sugar, Orange and Cotton, with the Fiesta taking the place of the Cotton in terms of importance in the BCS-era in the next day or two. Statement added to first paragraph and source added. Patriarca12 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
I believe the score is not sorted properly. The note states that it's sorted by "margin of victory" which is linked to a glossary where I read that margin of victory means The total difference in points in a game, expressed as possessed by the winning team. Therefore, when I sort from the highest margin to the lowest, I have to see the 25th (32 point margin) bowl sorted below the 58th(42 point margin). This list currently sorts the 25th (32 point margin) bowl below the 51st (1 point margin) bowl. One is not a higher number than 32.- I see what you are saying and have further clarified the note explaining how the column sorts. Essentially, it sorts whether the contest was an Alabama win loss or tie first and then is sorted by margin of victory for each of those three categories. If it still does not look right, please let me know and I will try to come up with a better solution.
- It's all right now, the note corresponds to the way the sorting works. I was just expecting to see the score sorted from the best result to the worst result. What I mean is the 11th bowl has the highest margin of victory (+55 points), so it should be sorted as "the best result". The 25th bowl has the highest margin of loss(-32 points), so it should be sorted as "the worst result". It's just my preference, so you can disregard it.--Cheetah (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you are saying and have further clarified the note explaining how the column sorts. Essentially, it sorts whether the contest was an Alabama win loss or tie first and then is sorted by margin of victory for each of those three categories. If it still does not look right, please let me know and I will try to come up with a better solution.
What reference are you using for the 58th Bowl? How do I check if the attendance number is correct?- Good call. I have added a separate reference for that game, and will remove it in the future when the NCAA publishes its 2011 NCAA Division I Football Records.
--Cheetah (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to check this out as it is appreciated. Please let me know if further things need to be addressed. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Remove all en-dashes in prose, as they are contrary to MOS (ex. "between 1931–1946" should be between 1931 and 1946). This doesn't apply to box scores.
- Done
"Included in these games are 31 combined appearances... and three Bowl Championship Series (BCS) game appearances" - 31 and 3 are comparable quantities, so it should be "thirty-one and three" or "31 and 3" (latter preferred).
- Done
"and 3 ties" - comma after
- Done
- What purpose does the number column serve? The table can be put in its original order simply by sorting the "Date" and "Season" columns.
- Honestly, I have this column here as it is in place at the other three lists of bowls that have been promoted to FL (Connecticut, Texas Tech and Virginia Tech). I have no opinion either way on keeping it or omitting it as long as there is a general consensus on its inclusion or not.
Note in the key where the year links and team links go because the links are not necessarily self-explanatory.
- Done
Hope these comments help. Support — KV5 • Talk • 15:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
::Thanks for the comments. I will get to them as soon as I get home later this week. Patriarca12 (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again! I have addressed your comments at this time, and please let me know if you see anything else that needs to be worked on. Cheers! Patriarca12 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no issues beyond those noted and addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:28, 17 April 2011 (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 03:24, 19 March 2011 [22].
U.S. state reptiles
- Nominator(s): TCO (talk), NYMFan69-86 (talk)
State reptiles are frequent subjects for young schoolchildren and provide an easy, friendly way to get into studying biology. But the prompt for doing this article was actually the incomprehension of non-Americans when hearing about state reptiles in FAC for Painted turtle. I hope this article explains what the heck a state reptile is and just shows some fun, quirky Americana.
We have gotten a little help from heavies in the list world on formatting, but appreciate your continued kind instruction and help to make this thing front page material. This is our first visit to FLC, but we are already eying another "prize": Subspecies of Galápagos tortoise.
Note: There is a potential usage problem with the Alabama red-bellied turtle image. Have filed an FFD to try to resolve that and send out emails asking for a donation. Fixed. Got permission for the original image. Uploading OTRS and proper copyright holder to Commons.
TCO (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title should be List of U.S. state reptiles consistent with all other state symbol lists and most FLs in general; WP:article titles generally should not be plural.Reywas92Talk 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Returned to U.S. state reptiles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - references should be after the punctuation marks in the notes. Is an image needed in biology? also on this point there might be too many pictures in the top half of the article, I understand the table but the pictures in history and biology make the article seem flooded with images, it might be a good idea to remove one of the images and reduce the size of the rest. The Lead may not adequately summarize the article may be a good idea to expand upon it.Afro (Talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have limited ability to respond to further comments until Tuesday (on travel).TCO (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments on a quick run
Just a real quick glance, I'll need to do a more thorough review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref.(s) or Ref(s)? I thought Ref. was an abbreviation for Reference, so should get a period, no? I would spell it out if it didn't screw up my column. Not arguing, just wondering. TCO (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Started a page for state bats (it was a redlink for our article).TCO (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have a few comments:
- Lede:
- "As with other state symbols, states show their pride via the "Whereases" of designating statutes. " I think I know what you mean here. Thousands wouldn't. I would say "legislatures" rather than Whereases.
- "Schoolchildren often start the campaigns to name state reptiles". I'd strike the "the".
- Done.
- " Six states chose species named after the state.". Lose the second state. Perhaps "named after it"
- Done.
- Government aspects
- Perhaps "governmental aspects"?
- Done.
- Does the flowery language bit need citation? Also, usually joint resolutions have numbers, or else put a date of passage.
- That was my generalization in the sneaky guise of a topic sentence. I think it's justified, but if it made you pause, will make others. Cut comment and reader can draw his own inferences. For the JRS, I put the number back (we had it before, but I had cut it thinking the reference sufficed).
- On the "resolution", I'd add that it does not require the governor's signature
- Done.
- West Virginia: You need the name of the town. Maybe it is the same as the school, but that isn't obvious.
- I added it in brackets with a link. Interesting article actually. I could also do a note or even just use ellipses to eliminate the town digression.
- "While ..." rephrase so as not to use word "While".
- Cut.
- Virginia and other states: You should provide pipes to the article on the individual houses of the legislature, for example Virginia House of Delegates.
- I piped PA houses. For VA, had already rewritten to cut some of the discussion of the failure in General Assembly (was very similar story to PA just opposite houses and my cute little comments about NC rivalry give enough VA copy already. I was tempted to try to sneak in the Virginia Republicans for Reptiles but its not an RS and I already have enough cute little finds.
- " Virginia has had two unsuccessful legislative attempts to elevate the eastern box turtle." Perhaps reverse it "Proponents of the eastern box turtle have seen two attempts to elevate it in Virginia fail."
- Done.
- "Official state reptiles are used for education." Perhaps "Designation of state reptiles is used in the education process". And perhaps if you can justify it, add "and to interest children in state geography and/or politics", only if a ref says that. Frankly, I'd rewrite this section, saying something like "State officials, most often the secretary of state, use webpages and coloring books to reach out to children. In Missouri, the incumbent, Robin Carnahan, uses the coloring book to great future voters."
- It's more than just the designation. They use them for all kinds of crap. Basic geography. Logic games. Report writing. I don't remember doing any of that stuff when I was in school, but just Google it. It's all the rage. Heck, that makes me feel good that we have a decent page with all the wikilinks to our articles for teachers and kids to look stuff up. We're better than Netstate or the like, although it's good to know there is alternate content out there too. I rewrote the section a little, and backed up the comment about lesson plans with some refs, but it may still not be there. Please feel free to rewrite if you want, cut Robin's quote, etc. I don't like starting a section with a nominalization though ("designation").
- TCU: That story is long enough you should probably name the guy. And watch your word choice when you are casting around to avoid a repetition!
- Added and (WTF) red-linked him. I'm not sure what boner I pulled, but thanks I guess you caught one.
- Biology
- "wide-ranged" Surely "wide-ranging"?
- I mean the species's range covers a lot of the USA. The individual animals don't really travel far (nothing like a wolf or the like). They are slow and have little legs. Although they move if a water body dries up and sometimes in search of food or the males for females or females to nest (but a couple miles or so). But I cut the whole term.
That's it. A nice effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I agree with all your comments and will fix. Also, saw you put in several upgrades. TCO (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few small points to address:
- The eastern box turtle image is the only one with head to the right. It would be nicer flipped.
- Many of these are protected or endangered, it'd be nice to identify them in the table.
- In citations:
- The lede is not exempt from wp:V. It should have supporting citations.
- If this is relating to your comments on summary form ledes ([23], I disagree with you on what is best for the article. General practice and even FA preference is not to have duplicated reference marks for executive summary style leads (provided content is backed up elsewhere in article). This is also how I write content off-wiki. While I respect your right to argue your view in the policy discussions, would ask that you give my article an oppose or support without respect to this issue. I find discussions going back to at least 2006 on this topic, one with Malleus against the notes and SV for them.
- Thank you for drawing my attention to the open-ended state of that discussion, I thought it was resolved. It won't impact my position re this article. Still, I would urge caution. Summary style or executive style ledes that omit explicit citations are vulnerable to wp:SYNTH creeping in. Thus it is especially important to check that each assertion in the lede is also seen elsewhere in the article and cited there. Have you done that?00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Refs 59, 67 should follow the form of the other cites to that book (Shearer 1994)
- It appears that NSTATE LLC owns Netstate.com - while convenient it is not clear to me whether it's [stable and wp:RS. In any case, I'd suggest adding archiveurl and archivedate to the {{cite web}} instances to back up the "as of" statements. The internet archive seems to have content for that site, though of course it embargoes it for a few months.
- Nice change of pace. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dianna's comments
* I had a bunch of copy edits to suggest but just did them myself. Not sure what this is (possibly a typo?): Gopherus (gopher tortoises). Note the last two letters are italicised; I am not sure what is intended here.
- I redid this sentence, also included a link to Gopherus.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Shearer and Shearer just appear out of the blue. Please add a phrase telling us something about who they are or what publication you are talking about.
- "In their almanac"
*Book titles need to be capitalised.
- The Shearer book citations under "Citations?" A few of them need to be condensed also...I'm on it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Book titles need to be capitalised per Chicago and our own MoS but not all of our articles do that; even some of the feature articles do not do it. Chicago also calls for web page titles and article titles to be capitalised headline style but right now no one seems to be enforcing it. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*State birds needs disambiguation.
- Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*http://myfwc.com/newsroom/08/statewide/News_08_X_SeaTurtleSymbol.htm is a dead link. It is listed in two different ways, at Cite #11 and #51. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr. :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the saltwater reptile itself (not the quote), I changed to ref to be to the statute itself (not a press release). I also added enough content (bill number and year) so that even if web location goes back, the cite itself has validity (I think this is how to handle this issue).TCO (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr. :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and discuss how widespread the animal is in the state or how needing of preservation." Feels like "it is" is begging to be put at the end.
The Justification section is pretty much entirely a bunck of quotes. Is there anything else that can be done with it, like using a bit of paraphrasing? It seems a little plain and ordinary for a piece of featured content. There are several other quotes in the next couple sections, come to think of it. Seven quotes in eight (not large) paragraphs is a lot.
- Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not a fan of the bolding that's been inserted. It doesn't strike me as necessary to have it, and I don't think the MoS supports it.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation: Why is the bracketed town name in quotation marks? This is also in note 12.
Geography: "From the twenty-four of the contiguous states roughly south of the Mason-Dixon line. only five lacked a state reptile." En dash needed for the hyphen in "Mason-Dixon link", and "lacked" should be "lack" (this is meant to be in present terms, correct?).
What makes http://www.collegefootballhistory.com (reference 27) a reliable source? It's also missing a publisher from the citation.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the college's official athletics website. That's fine in terms of reliability, although I'm not sure CBSSports.com should be considered the true publisher since it's a different website. Perhaps add info on the college to the cite? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I had the "roughly" caveat in text. But I've expanded on it via a note. Cool now? I used states that actually have state reptiles as I think that is more meaningful in this article, than discussing the geography in terms of NJ and DE (a northern and southern state, each with a little extension across the line), but neither of which have a state reptile.TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Giants. Will either fix or respond. TCO (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.
- I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, man. I'm going to leave as is. There is the url and then the publisher indicatin the commercial entity behind the content. I think this is actually more conservative to list it as this .com provider, than asserting it is the university when it is not.TCO (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.
- 2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
- The bolding is now gone and I struck out the related comments above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
Image Comments
- Been through and checked all the images, all seems to be ok and licensing is in order. However a few loose ends could do with tidying up to ensure everything is covered.
- In regards to the college image File:Another stat reptile collage.jpg, it has black borders on its right and bottom sides which need to be continued all the way around or removed, either way to tidy up this image that heads the article (I don't mind doing this just decide whether you want the borders in or out).
- Also all images contributing to the college have been linked too and it's good practice to link all images used back to the college. 1 of the 4 images do this but File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada mirror image.jpg, File:Gopherus polyphemus Tomfriedel.jpg and File:Collared Lizard 1.jpg should do also.
- The license of File:Alabama red-bellied turtle US FWS cropped.jpg needs to be looked at, as its currently not displaying correctly.
Apart from those few things, all seems good to me, can't seem to find anything of concern and I believe it would make a worthy addition to FL once everything is sorted. If I had to nitpick, there is one tiny thing, nothing major but there is one red link Addison Clark Jr.. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix the image issues and insert in article. I will probably live with the redlink. The FA crew are OK with those. I started a list on state bats, so that should keep TRM and the listers happy. For AC, I would really need an article on his dad first. Actually, I will probably get around to it...the redlink motivates me. TCO (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The red link in itself is not a problem. If half the list was red links it would be, but one red link in an article filled with blue isn't a failure of any criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look over the page, and I haven't noticed any scientific mistakes. A few bits in the Conservation section need citations, but that should be pretty straightforward, and I've tagged those. Mokele (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review. cites added.TCO (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Mokele. :-)
In the IUCN ratings, I had a hard time understanding this sentence: "There, the loggerhead sea turtle is only considered threatened." What is "there" referring to? bibliomaniac15 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article has seriously raised the bar on research, image presentation and what can be written in a Featured List of a state symbol. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per SunCreator. Meets all criteria comfortably, written to a high standard of a neutral tone. Lead section introduces the subject consistently and is enticing. Signifcantly well researched and supported, content is comprehensive. Attractive visual appeal and well presented. Certainly a worthy addition to FL in my books. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I am intrigued that there's been no discussion on the underrepresentation of snakes, but if it isn't in sources it ain't there. Nice list. I did a bit of a copyedit. Nothing else jumps out at me as needing improving. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't talk about it, but they do talk about the turtle fascination. Kids just love them, want to have them as pets, etc. Was doing some research on commercial raising of turtles, and there was the comment "give a kid a choice between a turtle and a lizard, and the turtle will win every time". And I think snake would be the same. Turtles would be even more popular if the USA allowed hatchling pets (forbidden since 1975 for public health reasons). But still, kids dig them.
- On the snakes, rattlesnakes are an American sort of icon and were even a Revolutionary War symbol ("Don't tread on me") and two states do use a form of rattlesnake. None of the sources said anything about current fear/hatred of snakes (look at Harry Potter, darned parseltongue), but I'm sure we could speculate that there are some people not too crazy about snakes, and there is the Biblical archetype. But other than Shearer and one overall article, there is not much at the overview level, anyway. This article was built up mostly from the state by state examples.
- The animal that NYM and I think is really missing is the gila monster.TCO (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is one thing - I'd link species the first mention they appear in the body of the text. Painted turtle is linked yet most others aren't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had them linked for a while, but de-linked because Biology was hard to read with all the blue, along with how dry that section is anyhow. There was also the issue that there is a table of links at the bottom. But let's try it out. There's a lot more text now ahead of Bio mentioning species so maybe it works now.TCO (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well done. Good job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support - as I was peripherally involved in some of the technical aspects of the article. I can say that in my humble opinion, the article meets all the needs of accessibility (apart from the lack of a table caption - but I wouldn't insist on one where the table immediately follows a section header). The article is also very usable, particularly the ability to sort the table in meaningful ways. I'm pleased to say that the visual appeal does not seem (to my eyes) to be in any way compromised by the adaptations made to meet WP:ACCESS, and I would be delighted if the consensus here was that this is one of Wikipedia's best works. Well done. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort? The article looks fascinating, and I'll be back after a proper read, but Rex's remark about the sortable table kind of hit me in the eye. Are idjits like me supposed to figger out for themselves how to sort it? Or are there some instructions hidden somewhere, that I don't see? Or is it so obvious everybody knows except me? Please add instructions for sorting, preferably not just in edit mode (remember the idjits).) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Never mind, I found the little clickers. Maybe the other idjits will, too. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 19 March 2011 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:42, 15 March 2011 [24].
List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)
I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the same format as the two other Man United player lists which have been promoted to Featured List. I would like feedback on any problems but hopefully the nomination will be successful. Thanks. 03md 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a ton of white space before the table, and more images could be added.Nergaal (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (some may apply to all similar lists in the series)
- What's LYR in the LYR F.C.?
- Means "Lancashire & Yorkshire Railway", need to see how to add it as the name was LYR
- "The club was formed... and played their..." mix of singular/plural in one sentence.
"in 1908 - the First " en-dash required."the European Cup.[3][2]" [2][3] please.- Worth noting that "Champions of European football" was club football, not national football.
- An awful lot on Tevez in the lead (four sentences/one image), seems a little biased.
"despite making fewer than 50 appearances " why has 50 suddenly become relevant in this list of 25 to 99 apps?Be consistent with diacritics, Tevez is missing his but Murhen etc seem well equipped.- Tevez's caption, where are all those stats referenced?
- Fixed, stats, still got "titles" to ref
- Sutcliffe's caption - is a dab, doesn't need a full stop, should be expanded a little.
- Dab Fixed, need to expand now
- Expand all captions a touch, and remember not to add a full stop unless the sentence is a complete one.
O'Connell total needs looking at.Check refs 1 to 5 inclusive for use of en-dash.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and" appears missing before "four Football League Cups."- I thought Amazon.com book links were discouraged? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does Tevez get a big fat caption but not the others?—indopug (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Missing source for nationality. Sandman888 (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spot, but I assume this is in the general reference, which is fine for those players up-to-and-including 2008 (the year of publication of the book) but players post-2008 need to have their nationalities referenced. Same would be true for the previous list (and the next one) in this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, and yes only those who started from the 2008 season.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- No, it is not in the book, so I object on missing sources. Sandman888 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, well that's a shame. This info needs sourcing, as Sandman says. I know the online snippets don't have nationality info, perhaps the paper copy does? I know my Ipswich version of the same book has that info (because I'm reading it right now) but maybe the MUFC one doesn't. Either way, it would be useful to hear from the nominator in this respect. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not in the book, so I object on missing sources. Sandman888 (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, and yes only those who started from the 2008 season.
- Good spot, but I assume this is in the general reference, which is fine for those players up-to-and-including 2008 (the year of publication of the book) but players post-2008 need to have their nationalities referenced. Same would be true for the previous list (and the next one) in this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recently got List of Manchester United F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) to featured list and this concern was not raised, as it was covered on MUFC Info I believe. But I have also been working on similar lists for Fulham where I have taken a different approach and only stated nationalities if they have played for their country. 03md 21:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but you'll need to answer this direct question here. Where are the nationalities of the players referenced? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2011 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 14 March 2011 [25].
Kylie Minogue singles discography
- Nominator(s): I Help, When I Can.[12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC), ℥nding·start 23:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after many sleepless nights of laboring over this article, in now meets professional writing standards, is 99% verifiable, and presents all notable topics in a format that can be understood. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—
- I've always opposed separate singles/albums discographies except in the case of singularities such as Elvis. To be blunt: this article doesn't need to exist. I think a single discography article with albums, singles and videos, although a little long, would work fine.
- Lead is far too long, repetitive and uninteresting. I don't see the point of naming so many singles and their chart positions; that's the tables below are for.
- Not seeing the necessity to quote sources (in the references) so extensively (possible WP:COPYVIO??), especially since this is a discography article. How does this help?—indopug (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - See WP:LEAD#Lenth as it should be longer than four paragraphs. Citation needed template in Other users. Ref 27 has a dead link template. MixKyle.com's About doesn't suggest to be reliable. Afro (Talk) 12:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose Sorry, this list is not quite ready for FL:
|
- I will review this list later and make comments if necessary. This list is near to get the status, but I have doubts about the quotes in the references. Also I see some mirror sites, and reliability is thus questionable.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those can easily be removed if they are a problem. ℥nding·start 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose CFORK of Kylie Minogue discography. Nergaal (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it WP:CFORK? Can you please explain? – Novice7 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both articles listed in the link I gave can be merged back into a single article. There is no point in promoting the two forks as separate FLs instead of a single FL. All the other artist FLs have a discography article that contains both the albums and singles. There might be a reason to fork those of Elvis or Michael Jackson who just have huge careers, but Minogue is not one of those. Nergaal (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it WP:CFORK? Can you please explain? – Novice7 (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They were separated for a reason. The article was just way too big. This one alone is 60 bytes. I don't see what popularity has to do with it. The articles were huge, and full of content. ℥nding·start 05:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It peaked charts in Australia, New Zealand, and the greater majority of Europe." — What exactly is the "greater majority of Europe"?
- "She took a break in May 2005 after being diagnosed with breast cancer." — "...took a break" seems a little tacky to me so I think this needs to be rephrased. Example: "In May 2005, after being diagnosed with breast cancer, she went on medical leave until [date]." Done ℥nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it may not be necessary I think it would look better if a uniform width is applied to all the singles charts.
- A comment for all wikipedia editors: Should a decision be made to have a good "rule of thumb" on when to divide a discography into two (singles and albums), such as artists that have large discograhies (i.e. Elvis Presley)? — Jimknut (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you guys are saying, Kylie doesn't have as big of a discography as Elvis. But this article is an extremely notable, as well as extremely, in my opinion, well done. Just because she doesn't have as much of a discography as Elvis, it doesn't mean that she isn't entitled, or have enough to have her own separate albums and singles discographies. As I said before, this article itself is 60 bytes. I think also, you need to take into consideration the lengths of the articles. She's also been out just a few years less than Madonna, and I find it funny how her singles discography is a FL, but here there's all sorts of problems that two articles aren't needed. Hers went by with no problem with it at all. Hours and hours went into getting this article to FL standards, and pretty much just saying this article is pointless is a quite kick to the face to the editors who worked on it. And yes, I completely aware you guys review it with your best interest, but that's just how it feels. Correct me if I'm wrong, am I missing something here? ℥nding·start 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CFORK states, "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article; Wikipedia:Summary style explains the technique." That what was really done here. The article was quite big, and it's, quite frankly, just going to get bigger. ℥nding·start 18:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - first off, looking at the fact that we have this article, the albums discog and the videography lists, I see no major problem with forking this out. So, with that in mind, some technical considerations:
- Infobox image caption needs no full stop. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "highest selling " shouldn't this be hyphenated? Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "produced several more singles." no real need for "more" Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "of the aforementioned charts" i know you want to avoid repeating Aus and UK, but this is not ideal. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems some inconsistency over the hyphenation of "the top-twenty" Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Table captions, probably ought to include the decade.
- "To avoid backlash " perhaps "To avoid any potential backlash..."? Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chemical Brothers is actually "The Chemical Brothers". Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Worth summarising her number ones? i.e. how many in Aus, UK etc? Just a thought (as she's had so many..)
- Towa Tei -> Tōwa Tei. Done ℥nding·start 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check titles of references meet WP:DASH (i.e. no spaced hyphens, use en-dash...)
- Ref 11 has "Simon", who is this?
- See ref 8 vs ref 12 for differences in formatting the same text. Done. I Help, When I Can. [12] 22:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Older nominations
- 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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [26].
Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist
Back into the breach with the 12th of 14 lists. The written works, magazines, editors, movies, and professional artists are done, so we now come to the Best Fan Artist award. Like the Professional Artist award, there's no mention of what works the artists in question worked on in the eligibility year; the award is simply noted as going to such-and-such. This list is basically identical to the Professional Artist list, but shorter and with different names. I've incorporated suggestions and changes from previous nominations into this list, as usual. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Weak support I have a few personal picks, but there are no major problems. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check- One dab link and no dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing wrong here, standard stuff by now. Courcelles 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support follows the formula, meets the criteria, nothing we can moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"though the 1954 Retro Hugos received insufficient nominations for the Fan Artist Hugo for make the ballot." Second "for" → "to". Note that this occurs in the lead and body.Winners and nominees: "Entries with a blue background and an asterisk next to the editor's name have won the award". Should "editor" be "artist" to match the award?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 1 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [27].
List of international cricket centuries by David Gower
Another international cricket centuries list: David Gower was one of England's most elegant batsmen. The list is based upon previous featured lists such as the recently promoted List of international cricket centuries by Jacques Kallis. Harrias talk 19:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Happy now. Courcelles 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I got a bit touchy about some possible POV stuff, but Harrias worked well to shut me up! Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The quote in the first sentence could use a cite at the end of that sentence. I'm against over-citation in general, but a quote is something I'd expect to see referenced ASAP.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I resolved this as you commented on it by removing the quote! Harrias talk 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (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 17:38, 18 April 2011 [28].
First Deputy Premier of the Soviet Union
I feel this list meets the FL-criteria. This will probably be my last list of Soviet leaders, of course, this is just a "probably". Anyhow, thanks for using your spare time reviewing this article. TIAYN (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Done " with the first deputyship" with their first deputyship?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Done Don't like "0 years" in the table.
- I can remove them, but I don't see the problem. 0 years is included in the Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway) which is a FL.
- What is or isn't in another FL isn't really that relevant. I think "0 years" is unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can remove them, but I don't see the problem. 0 years is included in the Minister of Transport and Communications (Norway) which is a FL.
- Done Please add alt text to the images.
- Done I think this table may be a nightmare for screen-reading navigation, suggest you ask User:RexxS for some input here.
- I don't see the problem, It's the same table as used in the List of Premiers of the Soviet Union article..... --TIAYN (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has retired...... so what should I do now? --TIAYN (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rumours of my retirement have been somewhat exaggerated. I'm back from my wikibreak and I can confirm that the table (as it stands today) would be readable by many screen readers, although it really could do with some tidying. If you remember that a screen reader will find a 'row header' and a 'column header' for every data cell (so that it can announce them if required), then you can start to improve your markup or table structure to take account of that. To take an example, the cell containing "Minister of Internal Affairs" ought to have "Other offices held while first deputy" as its column header, and "Lavrentiy Beria" as its row header. It's good that "Lavrentiy Beria" is properly marked up with the row scope. Unfortunately there is another header - "First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1946–1990)" - between the data cell and the column header we want. It is quite possible that some screen readers may decide wrongly to use "First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers (1946–1990)" as the column header instead of "Other offices held while first deputy". As usual, I would prefer to see the table reformatted to ensure that the subheadings couldn't be confused with the main column headings, and I'd personally prefer the table without the first column of numbers, but I can see how the present structure may be preferred purely from a visual point-of-view. Although the table is not optimal for accessibility, I would have to weigh the impact of greater compliance on the visual presentation. I'd have to conclude that the table is sufficiently compliant with MOS:ACCESS that I couldn't oppose its promotion to FL on those grounds.
- From a maintenance point of view, I'd recommend getting rid of all of the rowspan="1" since they do nothing but clutter the text. Of course, that has no bearing on the quality of the list and I'd hope to see it promoted as soon as the remaining issues are resolved. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So therefore I'd like to remind the other FL directors that I do not object to this list being promoted. And I am, as ever, grateful to RexxS for swinging back by to give us some great advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I could not find anything against the criteria. No nitpicks as well.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*
bamse (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Done Is the break 1935–1941 explained in the lead?
- ... no one was elected to the post. Is the reason for that known? bamse (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've found the answer; there were only three Deputies of the Soviet Union (in the immediate post-war years there were 7) between 1935–1941 who held the post simontanously meaning that there was no point in appointing a deputy to the post of first deputy. --TIAYN (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, still hoping for somebody to dig up a reference that discusses the 1935 break. bamse (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Done
"and in the case of the Premiers absence...". "Premiers" → "Premier's". - Done
At the end of the sentence with the last commented-on part, there's a space between the citation and accompanying page number. I'd remove it, since the other page numbers come with no spaces. - Done
Comma needed after Dmitry Polyansky.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Done Link "plenum"?Done "tenurships" I think that's a misspelling.- What make the following sites reliable (sorry if some of these are obvious, I'm not a Russian speaker):
- Explanation All three sites are written by a professional staff who backs up their claims by listing references at the bottom of the their articles. One example, on the pseuduology.org article they list the 3rd edition of The Great Soviet Encycloapedia as one of their sources. The two other links also use sources. --TIAYN (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments: "A total of 26 individuals had held this post. None of them died in office or resigned from it, and 18 of them held other posts simultaneously with their First Deputy Premiership." Since none died/resigned, I'm wondering if it's necessary for inclusion. We could cut that out and splice those two sentences together, which may be cleaner. Only issue I found. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 17 April 2011 (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 18:24, 26 March 2011 [29].
List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as the fourth of five lists for featured list because I feel this list may meet the criteria already. The number of read links is 8% and within the limit of what I have seen to be acceptable here. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently a featured list), 1942 (currently a featured list), 1943 (currently a featured list), 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Mildly confused why Dessloch was awarded in 1941 but is listed here?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support meets my expectations of this kind of list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support I didn't see any problems other than those already mentioned when I looked at this last week. Since those are resolved... Courcelles 22:43, 7 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [30].
Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F)
My current open nomination has four supports and no open complaints, so I'm nominating the fifth list in the series for featured status. All comments to be expediently addressed. Many thanks for your interest. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Don't see any problems here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to return by the nominator after the merge, and spotted only one new issue: the note above the table needs to be updated by mentioning the letter F (only E is mentioned now).Other than that, the merge has been done effectively and I feel comfortable retaining my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*One niggle, in the seasons column, why is Ennis's 2007 sorting between Eaton and Eyre? Courcelles 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Hacks are sometimes required to make sorting function, good work. Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I preferred these separate, as it allowed a more focused lede to each group, but, so be it. Courcelles 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no issues beyond what was already addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating support after reading through post-merge article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI think I am going to be labelled as the CFORKing guy, but why is this list separate from the "F" one? It has only 32 entries and with the F one would barely pass 100. There are a few well beyond 150 entries so I don't think it would be too much. Splitting under 1900 players in something like 20 FLs is too much. I think the aim should be closer to 10. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal was for lists with 10 or fewer players to be subsumed into others. 32 entries is more than enough to constitute a stand-alone list. — KV5 • Talk • 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with KV5, this passes 3b. Courcelles 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with TRM. The scopes of these particular lists are very clear, and each fully meets the requirements for stand-alone lists as set out in WP:SAL. We have featured lists of all sizes, and there's no criterion in WP:FL? that states a list may only be split when it reaches a certain size. In addition, you must view the split itself as a whole. This is not the "E" sublist split from the "F" sublist; rather, it is the "E" list split from the original list, and viewed in that sense, it truly does not violate 3b, because it could not reasonably be included as part of the main article. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the following alternative scenario: if the original editor who split the main list into 10 distinct lists (instead of 20) and would have nominated the one named "E-F" I am sure nobody would have complained in that nomination about splitting E and F into separate articles because 111 is too much for a FL. FLs with more than 100 entires are passed on a regular basis these days, so I don't see how 111 would be a problem. The (original) intentn of CFORK (to my understanding) is to not split content more than it is necessary just to bump up the featured content count. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above objection; Policy clearly states that articles should be kept together. This translates into merging as many of the lists, as size and sorting permits. Precedence can be seen in the lists of gay/bi-sexual people. Sandman888 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" is an FL criteria, which parallels the logic in avoiding small splits. The reference to wp:otherstuff is quite hollow; it is common to refer to other FL list to determine application of policy, but you already knew that. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(→)TRM, splitting "per the alphabet" is your preference, isn't it? Show me a rule where I could see the "split lists per alphabet" line. There's none! I see no guideline supporting your position, either. Greatorangepumpkin, "E-F" will have less players than "C" and "B"(which are alread at WP:FL). If you're worried about lagging, you can submit "B" and "C" at WP:FLRC.Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To get this out of the way at the start rather than the end of the post, I have grumbled about these lists, a lot. Possibly too much. Grumble though I may, it's beyond dispute there is consensus for the format. That said, the end of 3b ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") would seem to support Cheetah's specific suggestion of merging E and F. —WFC— 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Thank you KV5 for your patience. I just went over all Phillies lists and the only lists that can still be merged are T-Z. Right now it's split into 4 lists, I think it can be 2 at the most. That's a comment for the future.--Cheetah (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cheetah; to address your final concern, if you look at the very bottom of the nom section, I have proposed merging T-V and W-Z to complete the series. Those merges will be done when (if) this passes and before I nominate G. One project at a time. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 3b, per my rationale below; E and F could reasonably be merged. —WFC— 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutal Based on the discussion that has taken place here, and the merge, I have agreed not to oppose this on 3b. I trust the judgement of The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Courcelles and Wizardman as far as the quality of this list goes. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If E and F were merged (or even if not), could we at least get consensus that all the other current and future ones are acceptable so we don't have to go through this again? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since all these articles are technically cforks, I think if they are split in a reasonable manner everybody will be happy. I am of the opinion that if the total is around 100 entries then that is an acceptable split. If Y+Z has 8+7=15 entries in total, that does not mean it is an acceptable split. U-Z has about 100 so I think that is an acceptable one, instead of slicing each possible letter that has 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion on 3(b). Capped by WFC |
---|
**I'm near enough with Nergaal. There is unquestionably consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. The question now is just ensuring that the individual splits are reasonable. —WFC— 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Separate suggestion I intend to continue the above discussion, whether that takes place here or elsewhere (for instance an RfC). But I do feel that we should do what we can to ensure that the Phillies lists are promoted as quickly as is possible. And that, as far as we can in the circumstances, minimise the drama. I would therefore propose that another Phillies list be granted an exception to the usual convention of only one list at a time. There is no issue with the overall quality of these lists, save for whether some individual ones meet 3b. To assist with the reduced drama aspect, I would suggest that the list nominated should be the longest remaining list, as that can reasonably be assumed to be the one least likely to be affected by a merge proposal. It takes an average of three to four weeks to promote an FL: even if were to take us a couple of months to work this out, there should be 3-4 relatively uncontroversial ones which can be promoted in the meantime. —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How short of a nomination period are we talking about? I don't feel comfortable with making the period too short for any list, even if it's in a series that is typically trustworthy quality-wise. For example, TRM continues to find issues to report in the MLB first-round draft picks series of lists, which are all of high quality. It's also possible that a reviewer who hasn't read lists in the series will spot problems that us regulars are missing. Then again, I also feel that this list should be promoted, and that the opposers are taking 3b beyond what it was intended to do (ensure that forky lists that shouldn't exist at all don't become featured, not determine how large a particular list should be), so what do I know? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no problem with that as long as we don't go overboard. We don't need six of these lists up at once, but if a list other than this one was nommed now I wouldn't object. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some level of merging, as has occurred, was probably a good thing. The list was always of high quality, this seemed like a pretty odd thing to hang up the nomination over (as it could be easily remedied if a different standard was decided on. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here.
and I'm sure that KV and Cheetah will find a solution by the time T-Z become an issue.just realised that T-Z have already been dealt with. The compromises that came as a direct result of the deadlock here have produced a stable situation. —WFC— 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here.
- I stroked out my oppose vote since my major concern was solved. I think though the two tables should be fully merged - you could leave a separator in the middle by selecting that row to be unsortable. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On that, I heartily disagree, because these are two separate lists contained in the same article, similar to the split lists of the Rawlings Gold Glove Award series (example: List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher). — KV5 • Talk • 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment glad that we're slowly reaching a consensus. I'm not saying it's right, but if we can move on from this, so much the better. My primary concern, perhaps my only concern is the subjective merging of lists. This is now setting the precedent that editors can hand-pick the "best" merges. I guess, as we have consensus, that's the way forward. However, I don't want to see people, in the future, arguing over whether L and M should be merged with N etc... Remember WP:SAL etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this, but as my disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC, I've responded on The Rambling Man's talk page. —WFC— 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I disagree, in part, with WFC's disagreement, but this disagreement over a disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC. I've replied at my talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bought a new computer yesterday and I have no lags now. I red this list weeks ago and I saw no issues. I make a second run and still no issues. A great list even if I haven't seen any baseball games :P.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:26, 21 March 2011 (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 not promoted by Dabomb87 21:12, 23 March 2011 [31].
List of TNA World Heavyweight Champions
I haven't nominated a list in a good while so I hope this meets the criteria, because I'm not sure if anything has changed since the IWGP Junior Tag Title passed. Okay, I'll answer all problems as quick as possible. This is a touchy title history, but I've tried to source it well enough to have no problems. Most of all, I'm glad to be back nominating lists. I got all the TNA Title articles to GA, and I have 3 lists already at FL, this is the only existing list to not be FL. If this one passes, I will work on the TV Title to bring it here. If this does well soon, then it will be here sooner than planned.--WillC 19:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative oppose- Kurt Angle wasn't "stripped" of the title, the decision was "reversed". Its very similar to Ted DiBiase and Chris Jericho's WWE title reigns being REVERSED and not stripped. I don't understand why his title reign is counted in the article. I'm sure all reliable sources can point this out. Until that misinformation in the article changes, I don't think it should be a FL. Feedback ☎ 20:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feedback you are completely wrong in this case. As seen from this archived ref straight from TNA themselves, it was not reversed, he was Stripped of the title. The title is even clear with "Angle Stripped Of The TNA World Title". So for you to oppose on those grounds, you will not be judging by the criteria, but by personal opinion when the evidence is clearly presented before you.--WillC 00:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Courcelles 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- 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 03:24, 19 March 2011 [33].
Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals
- Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this list meets the FL Criteria. This is my first major expansion of an article and I have formatted it to make it similar to the other FL Grammy Lists made predominantly by User:Another Believer.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Glad to see other contributors taking stabs at Grammy lists! This should certainly help to speed up the process with getting all categories up to good/FL status. I see no problems with references, ref formatting, or disambig links.
See my recent edit regarding sorting. Sorting capability needs to be incorporated into the entire "Performing artists" and "Work" columns.
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will let other reviewers determine if having multiple flags of the same country within the same cell (for example, four American flags for Christina Aguilera, Mya, Lil Kim and Pink) is necessary, and if country flags are preferred in general.
- Waiting for consensus --Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each category is different based on its history, but I feel like this lead is a little short. There may not be much to expand, but I would make sure there are no sources indicating why the category was started.
- Can't find anything, but will keep looking.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that at least one more image could be added to the right-hand column, if possible. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussed Below Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any major gripes about the list, but I will wait for other reviewers to examine the list before offering support. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start working on it ASAP =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the promotion of this list, regardless of whether or not the paragraph I added about Natalie and Nat King Cole and the five artists with more than one nomination within the same year is kept. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Reviewers, would it be worth including this link in the external links section? For some Grammy lists I added official YouTube links to award-winning music videos, but I was never sure if adding a link to tagged videos on the Grammy site was helpful/appropriate or not. Feedback would be appreciated for this list and others. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I went ahead and removed duplicate flags within the same cell. In my opinion, only one American flag is required if both performing artists are American. This can be discussed and reverted if consensus prefers multiple flags of the same country within the same cell. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Chieftains needs to use {{sortname}}
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, based on what AnotherBeliever said, I don't think that groups should be sorted. Is that ok or would you like me to keep?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a better image of Santana (or of another artist to replace it)
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how relevant the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) link is, seeing as the Grammys are awarded "without regard to album sales or chart position."
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like some other opinions with regards to whether or not to redlink the unlinked songs.
- Or to link them to the album the track appears on? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K, we will see with the discussion--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Another Believer; if the songs don't have articles, a link to its album appearance instead would be better (the reader wants to know more about the song, and the album's entry seems to be very informative in a few cases; better than a red link, I surmise).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kk will do!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking the award-winning songs is more important than linking the nominated songs. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I linked all of the non-linked songs to their suitable albums..yet some don't have album or articles to link to so I couldn't do some--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I will leave it as it is for now, since so far most want it linked to the album--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some songs are not really Pop music, but I support anyway (maybe Grammy meant popular music, what is not the same as Pop music).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a fact about Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole's win for "When I Fall in Love", as I thought this was a notable relationship and fact about a remake of one of his "signature hits". If reviewers feel this is not notable enough for inclusion in the lead, feel free to revert. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added a section to the lead about five artists that have received more than one nomination within the same year. Again, feel free to revert if deemed non-notable, though I do feel that this inclusion gives the lead a bit more bulk. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
That's all I see. Images are good, the table looks good. Amazing work. Novice7 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – looks good. Good job. Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written. Everything is sourced. I think nothing more is needed to pass it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks really nice! I see no issues. Great job! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Blackjacks101 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [34].
Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics
This list is inspired by the similar FLs for 2008 and 2010 Olympics, although it is slightly modified to give a more comprehensive coverage. Arsenikk (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
"Ten competition and 14 non-competitions were used" - huh? Do you mean ten competition and fourteen non-competition venues? Also, ten and fourteen are comparable quantities and should be formatted alike.
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- I think there should be a section on the Olympic village. Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Give me a day or so to create an article about the Olympic village, and I'll see if it is appropriate to paste some information into the article or not. Arsenikk (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for that taking so long time, I seem to have gotten distracted by something else on WP and suddenly time flew. Anyway, I've created the article Lillehammer Olympic Village (which covers both of them) and added three sentences on the issue in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the village article should be merged into this list. It should definitely be included here, and I am not sure it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want the information from that article pasted in here, with the level of detail in the subarticle? Also, there is more to be said about the village, there was a certain amount of public debate about the localization of it, and also there could be said more about the post-used (it did after all turn into a small subdivision), so I am comfortable with keeping the subarticle. Arsenikk (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I think is appropriate is to have a short section on it that contains the essential information about the village. Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copyedited a bit, and there is now one paragraph on non-competition venues in the lead, plus half a paragraph in the "post-Olympic" section. Technical details are available in the list. Any more information on this, and it would be undue weight. Arsenikk (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I think is appropriate is to have a short section on it that contains the essential information about the village. Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want the information from that article pasted in here, with the level of detail in the subarticle? Also, there is more to be said about the village, there was a certain amount of public debate about the localization of it, and also there could be said more about the post-used (it did after all turn into a small subdivision), so I am comfortable with keeping the subarticle. Arsenikk (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the village article should be merged into this list. It should definitely be included here, and I am not sure it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for that taking so long time, I seem to have gotten distracted by something else on WP and suddenly time flew. Anyway, I've created the article Lillehammer Olympic Village (which covers both of them) and added three sentences on the issue in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Give me a day or so to create an article about the Olympic village, and I'll see if it is appropriate to paste some information into the article or not. Arsenikk (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Refs 40-51 have no publisher. Ref 40, 42, 43, 50 need a format parameter. The Bibliographies need format parameters. "Håkon Hall and Gjørvik played host to the World Women's Handball Championship in 1999[50]," Ref should be after the punctuation mark. Afro (Talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
The last sentence of the lead is a bit like a run-on for my tastes. Could the walking distance from train stations be made into a small sentence of its own?Post-Olympic use: Double word in "Only part of the athlete accomodation was was built for permanent use".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 05:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support after my silly gaffe was pointed out. Courcelles 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my issues all resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have Nergaal and Afkatk been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why there isn't a section on the village yet. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another great list! :p --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2011 (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 03:24, 19 March 2011 [35].
Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration
I am nominating this for featured list because... I saw the endless work by Another Believer on Grammy Awards, so I thought I'd better pitch in on at least one list. Another Believer's deserves a lot of credit here as his previous work made it easy to find references. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your kind words. I am happy to see others contributing to the Grammy "project" as well. I will certainly give this list my stamp of approval. Even without my minor contributions, this list was highly consistent with other Grammy-related lists that have been promoted to FL status. I have not done research myself about the award, so I am not sure if there are other facts, controversies, etc. worth noting. Based solely on formatting, consistency with similar lists, media, and sources I will support the promotion of this list assuming other reviewers' concerns are addressed. Well done, Adabow. Keep up the great work and feel free to contribute to additional Grammy lists! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments: No disambig links or problematic external links. Also, I will let other reviewers decide this, but I can see how some people might find multiple flag icons of the same country in the same cell redundant. Would just one American flag work if both artists are American? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some issue with the alt text for Kanye West. Jujutacular talk 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. While correcting a spelling error, I added an additional "|" to correct the alt text. (Not to step on your toes, Adabow, just did it while I was making another edit!) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per MOS:FLAG, I'm not really sure if it's appropriate to list the flag icon next to the country name. I'm sort of on the fence about this one because it's a good visual identifier, but it risks overpowering the artist. For example, Rihanna lives and works in the United States, but with the gigantic Barbados flag, it might lead people to make them think she records in Barbados. Do other editors have opinions on this? Nomader (Talk) 23:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just re-used the format used in other FLs such as Grammy Award for Best Rock Album. I would have no objection to removing flags, but it would have to be done on all Grammy lists. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the flags look great. MOS:FLAG instructs not to use flags in article introductions or infoboxes--this table is neither. Also, under the section "Biographical use" MOS states: "If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards." Granted, this is in the case of country representation in sports. Still, I don't feel flag use in these Grammy lists is in violation of NPOV. For the sake of consistency, I would argue to keep the flags (see any Grammy-related FL). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that flags look great too, but they make the user instantly think about the nationality of the artist instead of who the singer is, and in many cases, doesn't accurately reflect their current citizenship. I think the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" actually makes specific mention of putting nationality flags next to artists; the example uses Paul McCartney and mentions that putting a flagicon next to his name emphasizes his Englishness over other qualities. I'd prefer it if there was a way we could do the list without the flags, but again, I'm not dead set against it by any means. It's no big deal– if no other editors feel the way I do about it, then I might as well support as I see no other outstanding issues with the list. I'll give it a few days though and maybe give the list another thorough review before I do so. Nomader (Talk) 03:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't put up much of a fight if consensus shows a preference for removing the flags. However, in my opinion, the flags do not make the list unclear, ambiguous or controversial (see the "Clarity" section), and therefore do not violate NPOV. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think the flags must be removed from this and all other Grammy lists. I don't like the appearance, it increases page-load time, doesn't particular add much to the article besides unnecessarily emphasising the performer's nationality. Also dislike the practice of wikilinking the countries.—indopug (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the flags, but I feel it would be regressive to unlink countries. WP:BTW. If consensus changes I am happy to revert (re-add the flags). Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does linking to United States a bunch of times help? Everybody already knows what is.—indopug (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the flags, but I feel it would be regressive to unlink countries. WP:BTW. If consensus changes I am happy to revert (re-add the flags). Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think the flags must be removed from this and all other Grammy lists. I don't like the appearance, it increases page-load time, doesn't particular add much to the article besides unnecessarily emphasising the performer's nationality. Also dislike the practice of wikilinking the countries.—indopug (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't put up much of a fight if consensus shows a preference for removing the flags. However, in my opinion, the flags do not make the list unclear, ambiguous or controversial (see the "Clarity" section), and therefore do not violate NPOV. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that flags look great too, but they make the user instantly think about the nationality of the artist instead of who the singer is, and in many cases, doesn't accurately reflect their current citizenship. I think the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" actually makes specific mention of putting nationality flags next to artists; the example uses Paul McCartney and mentions that putting a flagicon next to his name emphasizes his Englishness over other qualities. I'd prefer it if there was a way we could do the list without the flags, but again, I'm not dead set against it by any means. It's no big deal– if no other editors feel the way I do about it, then I might as well support as I see no other outstanding issues with the list. I'll give it a few days though and maybe give the list another thorough review before I do so. Nomader (Talk) 03:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the flags look great. MOS:FLAG instructs not to use flags in article introductions or infoboxes--this table is neither. Also, under the section "Biographical use" MOS states: "If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards." Granted, this is in the case of country representation in sports. Still, I don't feel flag use in these Grammy lists is in violation of NPOV. For the sake of consistency, I would argue to keep the flags (see any Grammy-related FL). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I liked the prior version with the flags; now it looks a little bit odd for me. Because this list a sortable, I see no problems to link so much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the better question is whether or not the Grammys put this much emphasis on nationality when they give out the awards... if they do, the nationality is sensationally important, but as is apparent in this list, the nationality could just be mentioned in the lead especially when the US dominates so strongly for an award. It's not the nationality that counts, but the artist themselves. I'm worried that the flags overshadow who the artists are. Nomader (Talk) 09:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We could do away with the column altogether? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is displaying nationalities more appropriate for some lists than others? Keep in mind that we are discussing a list with mostly American artists--some lists are dominated by artists from other nations or by artists from a variety of nations. Including nationality information provides additional detail to the reader by illustrating where Grammy-winning artists are from. In the greater picture, readers can compare one list to another to see how some music categories are more prominent in different parts of the world. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note to reviewers: Consensus seems to be in favour of keeping the flags. If you have an issue with this I suggest you post at WT:MOSICON. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per Another Believer's initial comments. Candyo32 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have looked through it and it meets FL criteria--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks great. Good job Adabow. Novice7 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (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 Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [36].
List of Governors of Washington
Bringing another governor's list up for nomination. Last governor's list to pass FL was Idaho and Washington is patterned after Idaho. Photos are included as Washington has similar copyright laws to that of the federal government. Dates given in the territorial governor section are the dates that I could find. There is a dearth of western Washington newspapers that have been digitized between 1870–1890. However, from the FAQ on the Washington State Library page, the Puget Sound newspaper from the missing time period is next in line to be released. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images checkI have serious concerns regarding images from the State of Washington due to the following disclaimer on their website: "Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site." Have you been able to confirm the copyright status from each image sourced to the State of Washington? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I agree with Admrboltz here. We can't assume the official portraits are public-domain just because the website is. Wikipedia is a freely licensed site with copyrighted photos, for example. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It was unusual, which is why I confirmed it by email with research@sos.wa.gov. They said they are in the public domain, but they wished to receive credit and use the Secretary of State privacy policy as that is their boss. Here is the digital archive's public domain and copyright policy that makes it crystal clear. If you view the photos at their site, you will notice no copyright or access restrictions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to have that email sent to OTRS listing the specific images they have guaranteed are free of copyright? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Email has been sent to OTRS. This was Washington's email response, "Thank you for checking with us. All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record." Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to have that email sent to OTRS listing the specific images they have guaranteed are free of copyright? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It was unusual, which is why I confirmed it by email with research@sos.wa.gov. They said they are in the public domain, but they wished to receive credit and use the Secretary of State privacy policy as that is their boss. Here is the digital archive's public domain and copyright policy that makes it crystal clear. If you view the photos at their site, you will notice no copyright or access restrictions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images check - all OK now. -AdmrBoltz 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Admrboltz here. We can't assume the official portraits are public-domain just because the website is. Wikipedia is a freely licensed site with copyrighted photos, for example. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check - ELs are fine, though article links to John Rogers a dab page. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lieutenant governors need a text indication of party, so we're not indicating information with color alone. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been brought up before on other FLC governor candidates. For example, from the Utah FLC nomination.
- Per WP:COLOR color can not be the only way to convey an important information. However you use color as the only way to indicate if the lieutenant governor is a democrat or republican.
- My personal feeling is that since this is a list of governors, we can get away with that; want to know about the Lt. Governors, go to their list. However, I've dealt with this before on the California list and will add references to the ones that do not match their governor's party. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not very important. You could have "All lieutenant governors were members of the same party as the corresponding governors unless specified." and just have a note for the few that are different. —Designate (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- My personal feeling is that since this is a list of governors, we can get away with that; want to know about the Lt. Governors, go to their list. However, I've dealt with this before on the California list and will add references to the ones that do not match their governor's party. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:COLOR color can not be the only way to convey an important information. However you use color as the only way to indicate if the lieutenant governor is a democrat or republican.
- I stand by what I said there. There needs to be some text indication, even if most are the same party. For this one, many are from different parties so it's more significant. —Designate (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments (no verdict yet, just free-form thinking)
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Re overlinking, I've tended to repeatedly link people, but link parties only on their first appearance. Are you suggesting I should link people only once as well, including governors? In the past I thought it rude to ask someone to hunt for the link for someone who served more than once. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Overlinking" is a problem because it makes paragraphs hard to read and it runs together with more useful links. It doesn't apply here because people don't read tables in a predictable way. They could be reading from the bottom-up or picking any arbitrary date. Plus all the elements are isolated, so links aren't running together. There's no reason to be pedantic about what's linked. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I'm not being pedantic. If you're going to overlink, at least do it consistently within the article. All or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Overlinking" is a problem because it makes paragraphs hard to read and it runs together with more useful links. It doesn't apply here because people don't read tables in a predictable way. They could be reading from the bottom-up or picking any arbitrary date. Plus all the elements are isolated, so links aren't running together. There's no reason to be pedantic about what's linked. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re overlinking, I've tended to repeatedly link people, but link parties only on their first appearance. Are you suggesting I should link people only once as well, including governors? In the past I thought it rude to ask someone to hunt for the link for someone who served more than once. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and Prosified 'Other high offices' as well as attempted to make sense of the party number situation. It might need a little brushing up on my rough language, but I think it's good enough to say Support. The last remaining question is, do we link the party line on each row? --Golbez (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"George E. Cole was appointed governor and took office, but his appointment was never ratified by the U.S. Senate and was replaced as governor after four months." Needs "he" before "was replaced".Note 15: "Governor Gregoire's first term expires January 14, 2009" needs an update.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of updating it to the new footnote-style refs, because I loves them and hearts them and am so happy they exist. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In the references, "Our New Governor" (PDF). Puget Sound Herald. June 12, 1862" has a "PDF" in there. Does it mean the link is missing or "PDF" is put wrongly?--Cheetah (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominations for removal
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating
- Notified: Parutakupiu
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
- Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
- None of the tables are accessible
- No alt text on any of the images
Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination.Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to allow time for improvements to be made, so striking my vote to delist. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey man im josh, I have begun work on this article today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Pleased to see the progress being made! I'm more than willing to be patient if an effort is being made :) Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]