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 satisfy the FL 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 FLC process. Ones 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 peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates—Crisco 1492, SchroCat, and PresN—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; 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 main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects – |
Featured list tools:
|
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
|
Nominations urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated more than 20 days 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: |
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 List of accolades received by Carol (film)
- 1.2 Len Deighton bibliography
- 1.3 NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship
- 1.4 List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone
- 1.5 Jimi Hendrix videography
- 1.6 Bipasha Basu filmography
- 1.7 List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae
- 1.8 400-series highways
- 1.9 Hoodoo Gurus discography
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 Premier ensemble
- 2.2 Selena albums discography
- 2.3 Cantons of Costa Rica
- 2.4 List of Six Nations Championship hat-tricks
- 2.5 List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)
- 2.6 T-ara discography
- 2.7 List of mountain peaks of North America
- 2.8 List of Lady Gaga live performances
- 2.9 WCW Light Heavyweight Championship
- 2.10 List of U.S. Highways in Michigan
- 2.11 Mohanlal filmography
- 2.12 List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper
- 2.13 List of presidents of the Linguistic Society of America
- 2.14 Inna discography
- 2.15 List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna
- 2.16 List of songs recorded by Olly Murs
- 2.17 List of cities in the Philippines
- 2.18 List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium
- 2.19 List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium
- 2.20 Elmore James discography
- 2.21 List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons
- 2.22 Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship
- 2.23 Roald Dahl bibliography
- 2.24 List of songs in Guitar Hero Live
- 2.25 Sam Waterston on screen and stage
- 2.26 List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients
- 2.27 List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds
- 2.28 List of accolades received by Selma (film)
- 2.29 World Fantasy Convention Award
- 2.30 List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)
- 2.31 Jessica Chastain on screen and stage
- 2.32 List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek
- 3 Nominations for removal
Nominations
List of accolades received by Carol (film)
Nominating this list again. I believe that prior concerns and suggestions were addressed. Carol is a 2015 British-American romantic drama film directed by Todd Haynes. The screenplay, written by Phyllis Nagy, is based on Patricia Highsmith's 1952 groundbreaking romance novel The Price of Salt. Carol is Metacritic's best reviewed film of 2015. Over 130 critics and publications included the film in their Top Ten lists. The film received over 190 industry and critics nominations and over 50 awards. It was nominated for six Academy Awards. In 2016, the British Film Institute named it the best LGBT film of all time. Lapadite (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Len Deighton bibliography
Len Deighton is a superlative writer. He produces books on three general areas: military history, cookery and spy/thriller novels; all are well-received by the critics and public alike, with one critic describing him as "a master of modern spy fiction and one of the most innovative writers" of the spy genre. His triple trilogy (and prequel) of Bernard Samson novels is of exceptional high-quality and standing. This bibliography has been separated from the basic (and unsourced) list in the biography, has been brought into line with MOS requirements, and is now fully sourced throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship
I am nominating this article now because my other FLC "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." as the rules state - five supports, no objections qualifies as substantial I think.
So I bring to you another wrestling championship list, this time I am excited about it as it's a special list to me. I am hoping to turn this into a Good Topic and potentially Feature topic over time by bringing the champion articles (Mephisto, La Sombra, Volador Jr., Negro Casas and Mascara Dorada) to Good Article status as well. But no Good Topic without this list. It is the sum total of all I have learned over the past 15 FLCs I have gone through, each of them used to create a better, higher quality starting point for my lists. MPJ-US 04:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone
Partially based on Leonardo DiCaprio's awards and nominations list, a list I wrote back in mid 2015, this is an exhaustive list of accolades received by actress Emma Stone. I have added every notable award that was covered by reliable sources. I initially intended to just expand the list and not bring it here, fearing it might be a WP:CFORK case as it seemed a bit short then, but I believe a page with 28 awards and 83 nominations is enough to warrant a stand-alone list. You might see some difference between this list and others of its kind; for that please read the discussion in its talk page. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Jimi Hendrix videography
Jimi Hendrix is one of the best-known 1960s rock musicians. Videos documenting his concerts and career continue to be released. This separate videography was created by combining the relevant sections from the featured list Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Besides convenience, it helps to reduce size problems with the discographies (WP:Article size). It has been updated with new titles and references and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Thanks for your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Bipasha Basu filmography
- Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC) & Vensatry (Talk)
This list was created by Vensatry. I made further required changes and now I feel it meets the criteria's. Thank you. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
CommentsSupport
- The lead needs some polishing.
-
- "She received further critical acclaim and box-office success..." - I don't think "further critical acclaim and box-office success" works here, as the article doesn't talk about any prior success
- "Her roles in films like Ajnabee, Raaz and Jism established her as a sex symbol of Hindi cinema." - The artcile never talks about "her roles", maybe a brief description of what roles she played to be deemed as the "sex symbol".
- "Basu's next releases in 2004 like Aetbaar, Rudraksh, Rakht and Barsaat (2005) proved" - I think the phrasing doesn't work with 2004 in the begining.
- She later acted in Prakash Jha's crime drama Apaharan (2005), and the multi-starrer comedy No Entry (2005), for which she received a Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress nomination. The film emerged as a financial success, grossing ₹750 million (US$11 million) at the box office." - The first sentence would work better as two separate sentences, as this here suggests that the Filmfare was for both movies, Also separating the sentences would add clarity for the box-office sentence as well.
- " thriller Dhoom 2. It was one..." - thriller Dhoom 2, which was one. Just a suggestion though.
-
- I meant merge the two sentences. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Two years later she collaborated again with Abbas-Mustan for Race (2008),..." - a reason of why the articles jumps two years might work better.
- "... and made her debut in Bengali cinema" - New sentence maybe?
- "Horror queen" - "Scream queen", particularly because the article concurs with your facts, listing Basu as India's scream queen.
-
- Being an attributed claim, we cannot say that unless the sources claim that way. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned you can find it the Scream queens article itself with a footnote that substantiates the claim. Scream queen is the better suited term here. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like that's a self-proclaimed title. It's better to have the popular opinion. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I find the issue rather trivial but still if you just Google Bipasha Basu Scream Queen you'll find enough reliable source to support the claim. NumerounovedantTalk 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like that's a self-proclaimed title. It's better to have the popular opinion. —Vensatry (Talk) 16:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- "roles as conjoined twins, thus becoming the first actress in Bollywood to perform such a role." - I am not sure what such a role means.
- What I meant was that it sounds odd referring to conjoined twins aa "such a role". Try re-phrasing maybe? NumerounovedantTalk 09:51, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- " as a host of the horror show Darr Sabko Lagta Hai." - maybe mention the network where the shows airs, but again just a suggestion.
- I also feel a couple of important roles are missing from the Lead, most notably Omkara which was (one of them if not it) biggest critical success for Basu I assume? Rest the list looks good! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- You're quite right. Added a bit about the film. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Left my final comments. NumerounovedantTalk 09:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Good work! NumerounovedantTalk 19:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae
- Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it satisfies the FLC criteria. It is comprehensive, well-written, and solidly sourced. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
400-series highways
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the final hurdle in making a good/featured topic on the 400-series highways of Ontario, the result of over 7 years of research, photography and writing by myself and a few helpful peers. Floydian τ ¢ 05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Some quick comments:
- Shouldn't there be a note for 407 that says it's a toll highway (under notes)?
- 417 has a broken format box.
Mattximus (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Could you explain further on what you mean with the latter point? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments:
- I would suggest the list gets moved to List of 400-series highways in Ontario as to give more context that its a list and that the 400-series highways are in Ontario, something many readers cannot assume.
- Can a section listing the format for the highway names be added to the infobox?
- Do you think you can add a description section covering the maintenance, numbering scheme, total length, and longest and shortest highways of the 400-series highways? See List of Interstate Highways in Michigan for an example. I would also order the three sections preceding the table as Description, Design standards, and History.
- I notice you link to Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which concerns the United States. Doesn't Canada have a similar manual? If so, you should link to that or indicate that title instead of the US MUTCD.
- Why are some of the lengths to 0 decimal places and some of the lengths to 1 decimal place? You should be consistent here.
- Is there a way the size of the shield for Highway 407 can be reduced? It looks disproportionately large compared to the other shields.
- I agree, will have to contact one of our Lua learned peers on this. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Right now, all shields are displayed by {{routelist row}} with a size of "x25px". Unfortunately, Highway 407's unique shield dimensions yield ugly results with that code. I think there should be a discussion somewhere (not here) to fix the issues that have come up regarding shield sizes in that template and in {{jct}}. As for right now, the module design does not allow for a clean and easy fix. -happy5214 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, will have to contact one of our Lua learned peers on this. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can a color be added to indicate Highways 412 and 418 are under construction?
- Why is the length for Highway 412 coming up as 10 kilometers and 10 miles? something seems wrong here.
- This issue is far beyond my technical expertise. @Happy5214:, do you have any insight on this issue and the two above? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Module:Routelist row/sandbox has a fix for this issue. Test it so I can deploy it. It adds a digit of precision if the input is a whole number divisible by 10. In other words, the output should be 6 miles. -happy5214 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- This issue is far beyond my technical expertise. @Happy5214:, do you have any insight on this issue and the two above? - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is the length for Highway 418 known?
- The current TPR (technically preferred route) drawings for 407E phase two provide stationing measurements for the 407 alignment, but not for the EDL/418 alignment. At this time, as with ON 412, 10 km seems to be the rough and only estimate. I've contacted the construction firms for each phase to see if they can provide more accurate data. - Floydian τ ¢ 05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't Queen Elizabeth Way unsigned Highway 451? You should make a note of this in the table.
- You have a table for future HOV lanes. Is it possible to add a table for current HOV lanes?
- You should add some pictures of the 400-series highways to the article. See List of Interstate Highways in Michigan for a possible way the pictures can be showcased. Dough4872 01:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Some replies added. Will resolve some of the other issues in the next few days. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hoodoo Gurus discography
- Co-Nominator(s): shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We are nominating this for featured list, as we believe that whilst it was previously nominated in May 2008 we have made significant improvements over the last month that address all the previous identified issues and satisfactorily deal with all the FL criteria. We have both been involved in a number of other successful FLC so we understand what is necessary to met these standards. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Older nominations
Premier ensemble
This is a list of the eleven U.S. armed forces "premier ensembles". I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the featured list criteria. LavaBaron (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Procedural note -- I don't normally comment at FLC but I see this is listed at MilHist A-Class Review as well and I don't believe an article should be listed at both ACR and FLC simultaneously. I'd expect one to be withdrawn, or else a coord for one of the processes should arbitrarily close one. FWIW, some comments on the quality of the article have been left at the ACR nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Selena albums discography
I am nominating this for featured list after editing the article based on similar FLs like it. jona(talk) 22:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Cantons of Costa Rica
Costa Rica has well defined local governments and thus was rather easy to make a list. I completely overhauled the list to bring it up to the standards of recent lists of local municipalities. Interestingly, the list is already featured in Norwegian, and I used some of the sources from there to improve this list. I look forward to addressing any comments and concerns. Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support well-referenced for what it communicates and lavishly illustrated; good use of tables LavaBaron (talk) 08:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OpposeCommentsWhat is a canton? A link to Canton (country subdivision) should be addedDoneseveral county representatives - county? what county?DoneThe map of cantons should be paced on top to be more visible- Removed the map entirely, it has no labels so it serves no function at all.
- What is the original order of cantons in the list?
- Age of canton, I could alphabetize by province if that would be more logical?
- Alphabetizing by canton is the most logical to me.
- Now that I've added the dates, the order now seems a bit more logical. It is also the exact order that the statistics agency uses in Costa Rica, changing to alphabetization would make it much more difficult to update the list with new data, meaning this list will be out of date quicker if we alphabetise it. I am still willing to do this if you think it will be better, but I do have reservations thinking long term.
- Alphabetizing by canton is the most logical to me.
- Age of canton, I could alphabetize by province if that would be more logical?
Where are the administrative centers? Norwegians have them- There are no administrative centres, what the Norwegian article is listing are the "head" district (cabecera), but not overly important to include. It most cases they will all be dead links as English wikipedia does not have pages for most of these districts.
- There are some numbers in front of the cantons in Norwegian wiki? What do they mean? Why are they missing here?
- They are numbers given by the government of Costa Rica, I believe based on the time since incorporation. It does not add anything to the list, and functionally meaningless.
- Date founded and the number of districts in each canton should be added, as well.
- Date founded added... as for the number of districts, since there is no link (English wiki does not have district pages), I'm not sure how meaningful this number will be... it doesn't add any information to the table. Would you still think it necessary?
- Just to clarify: you are asking that I add 5 (!) more columns to the list? The head district, the sq mi, the government administration number, the number of districts, the date founded. Surely we can't include everything and have it still fit horizontally on the page. It may be possible to add one or two of these suggestions, but not all, the formatting won't permit. Which columns do you feel are necessary for you to strike your oppose?
- The number of districts and the date founded are a must.
- Took a while but I've added the dates.
- The number of districts and the date founded are a must.
- Land area should have both numbers: km2 and sq mi Done
- Added it, but now the table is almost too wide, it still fits with normal resolution however.
- No, there is no sq mi
- Should be, maybe refresh the page?
- I purged a couple of times, I don't see it
- It is definitely there, I tried on multiple computers. It's in the final column, in brackets beside the sq km.
- the population density has it, but not the land area.
- Oops, yep I see it, working on that now.
- Done, all units are now converted to miles.
- Oops, yep I see it, working on that now.
- the population density has it, but not the land area.
- It is definitely there, I tried on multiple computers. It's in the final column, in brackets beside the sq km.
- I purged a couple of times, I don't see it
- Should be, maybe refresh the page?
- No, there is no sq mi
- Added it, but now the table is almost too wide, it still fits with normal resolution however.
Population density sorts incorrectlyDone
Cheetah (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Six Nations Championship hat-tricks
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is very close to meeting the criteria. The Six Nations is about to finish, so what better way to celebrate than by getting this list to Featured standard. I currently have a list here, but as it already has three supports and no outstanding comments, this nom should be ok. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments (includes source review)
- "At that time a try by itself wasn't worth any points," avoid contraction
- "George Lindsay scored five tries in Scotland's 4–0 win over Wales in 1887. This is most tries scored in a single match," could you find a way to link both sentences?
- Not obligatory, but images could have alt text.
- Sources are fine, no real signs of close paraphrasing. No dead or dab links.
- For consistency purposes, are the general sources 'ESPN Scrum' like Ref 1?
- Ref 5 was published on 8 March 1999 Lemonade51 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thannks for the comments @Lemonade51:, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - on style, comprehensiveness and sourcing, can't seem to spot any howlers. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Small point - should the lead mention that rugby union is the sport involved? The link to the Six Nations will lead readers to discover the sport, but it might be worth making it explicit in the article? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1960–69)
- Nominator(s): §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it majorly seems to fit the criteria and with comments from other editors it can easily pass. The list is based on the current FL List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1954–59). Looking forward for constructive comments. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Yash! |
---|
*I am just taking a minor issue with the huge empty space which is present in 1960. It is more for technical editing but please make sure that it is not there.
I will have a go at the prose later. Thanks. Yash! 18:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
- Support - the minor issues raised by me were resolved. A very well written list. Yash! 13:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Yash! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support as a list that serves the project quite well. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- I hope this doesn't mean anything, but I noticed that this one-line support was preceded by a review request on the reviewer's talk page that ended with a winking face. With reports of talk page spamming at another FLC, can we please refrain from symbols like that, which may lead sketical outsiders to presume canvassing? It just doesn't look good, even though I don't believe that was the intention. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Ohhh! Didn't think that it could be interpreted as canvassing. The wink was only for the play of words and the popular film's title The Usual Suspects. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comments from Cartoon network freak
Hi there! I took a look at your article and here are my comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- Ref#2 should be placed after the second sentence.
- The Gazette of India—a publication... -> The Gazette of India, a publication...
- in the Gazette. -> in the journal
- are also registered... -> are as well archived
- Padma Vibhushan awards; preceded by the Bharat Ratna. -> reword; the semicolon sentence doesn't make any sense.
- The same with the following clause.
- posthumous awards but this was subsequently... -> posthumous awards; this was subsequently...
- design is a -> design portrays a
- were presented in the 1960s – ten... -> were presented in the 1960s – ten...
- 1960 followed... -> 1960, followed...
- Remove the semicolons and add a simple comma instead; e.g. I'm afraid you're struggle with the use of semicolons. You use them only to connect two sentences together, like "The song peaked at number five in UK; it was also certified Gold in the US".
- The lead overall features poor grammar, on which I'm going to comment detailed the following week, as I currently have no time.
- Explanatory notes
- Rename the section into simply "notes".
- External links
- Awards & Medals -> Awards and medals
@Dharmadhyaksha More comments to come in the course of the next week... Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Cartoon network freak: Have incorporated all your comments. Thanks! Waiting for more... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
T-ara discography
The list focuses on the discography of South Korean girl group T-ara. Personally speaking, this list is suitable for a FL candidate as it is comprehensive and fully detailed, as well as references are OK and reliable. Simon (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Not sure if there is any minor issues I'm not being aware of, but the article looks good and well-sourced. The lead paragraph covers the topic nicely.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
List of mountain peaks of North America
- Nominator(s): Buaidh 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this article for featured list because I believe this article provides useful information about the mountains of North America in a convenient style. We would appreciate any constructive criticism. And yes, we do have a lot of references. Yours aye, Buaidh 16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- This site has received 17,059 visits over the past 90 days. Buaidh 04:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
List of Lady Gaga live performances
- Nominator(s): Frankie talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC) and GagaNutella (talk)
I and the co-nominator have worked tirelessly on this newly created list for a couple of weeks. With some assistance from fellow editors, IndianBio and SNUGGUMS, I believe we are finally ready to present the final list from Lady Gaga at FLC. I think this would sit quite happily with the other four lists. Thank you. Note: It has sources from publishers like Daily Mail, which is often considered unreliable but it should be noted that they are only for her live performances and not other controversial information. -- Frankie talk 20:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - the lead mentions that she was the support on two tours before her first headline tour, but there is no sign of these in the tables. These may not have been her own headline shows, but they were still live performances by her, so surely they should be included.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, yes they they were still live performances by her that's why they are mentioned in the lead and in the table under the The Fame Ball Tour entry. It is not known on how many shows did she accompany them so it is difficult to create a table for those performances. I think just the lead is sufficient. Thank you. -- Frankie talk 19:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments by MPJ-DK (addressed) |
---|
-------------
As a thank you for your FL input on my FLC for the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am more than happy to provide input on this list. Grammatically I don't have a lot that stands out, so that's a good start.
Like I said, not a lot of issues as far as I can see, mainly sources in the text. MPJ-US 19:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Alright I will do one last check today, to verify that all claims in the lead are sourced in the tables. If that checks out I will be happy to provide my support. MPJ-US 12:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
|
- Comment - Just a question, but does this article even need to exist? It just feels like a fork of every album and single/song article, where all of this info is available on much more informative level. I don't see the relevance of it. — Calvin999 18:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Calvin999: yes, it does. There are already many lists about tours and live performances from other artists on Wikipedia, and Gaga is a tour force and her live performances are one of her identity. This list is cohesive, well sourced and complete. GagaNutellatalk 18:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I generally don't think it's that necessary, regardless of who it is for. It's nothing that isn't included in the respective articles as I mentioned previously, and in more details. I'm not denying that is cohesive, well sourced and complete; I wasn't and am not commenting on those aspects, just it's relevance. The article hasn't existed long enough to even view it's daily totals either to see if anyone is actually reading it. Also, I would have made the title read List of live performances by Lady Gaga, so that is matches that of the songs list. — Calvin999 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- By no means is this list or any other live performances list cfork of anything (live performances promote albums and songs). Her tours do exist but where did those last two sections exist before? If it is a cfork anyway, where should it be merged? If this list does not say anything new that her existing tours don't, artists' videographies do not either so I don't see the point of those lists. Besides, readership and age of this article got nothing to do with cfork. -- Frankie talk 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I see your point, Calvin999, but I believe this list will grow on Wiki. Also, there are many "bad" sourced and written lists here, like List of Selena concert tours, List of Shakira concert tours, List of David Bowie concert tours, but they are still active to people read. Lastly, the name we followed the "standard", which is "List of name of the artist tours/concert tours/live performances". GagaNutellatalk 19:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- By no means is this list or any other live performances list cfork of anything (live performances promote albums and songs). Her tours do exist but where did those last two sections exist before? If it is a cfork anyway, where should it be merged? If this list does not say anything new that her existing tours don't, artists' videographies do not either so I don't see the point of those lists. Besides, readership and age of this article got nothing to do with cfork. -- Frankie talk 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- I generally don't think it's that necessary, regardless of who it is for. It's nothing that isn't included in the respective articles as I mentioned previously, and in more details. I'm not denying that is cohesive, well sourced and complete; I wasn't and am not commenting on those aspects, just it's relevance. The article hasn't existed long enough to even view it's daily totals either to see if anyone is actually reading it. Also, I would have made the title read List of live performances by Lady Gaga, so that is matches that of the songs list. — Calvin999 18:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment As Gaga is a notable artist and has performed on many occasions, I think this list may be incomplete. Why don't we change the title to "List of concert tours by Lady Gaga" (can include residency show and promotional concert as well)? As far as I can see, the title "live performances" may be not fully exploited as Gaga had performed "live" in bars or clubs prior to her debut. Simon (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks but I think it is impossible to keep track of her live performances before she was an established artist. This is as comprehensive as possible list of live performances by Lady Gaga at her concerts and notable events. -- Frankie talk 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then I think this list should change to List of concert tours by Lady Gaga to make sure that it is fully comprehensive. I once nominated List of Christina Aguilera concert tours a FL but it did not get promoted because of the section "Notable live performances". Simon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- If I move it to concert tours, there will be little left, making it a pure CFORK. We have added performances that have been reported in the media, and like I said above, it is impossible to have her pre-fame performances. -- Frankie talk 09:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then I think this list should change to List of concert tours by Lady Gaga to make sure that it is fully comprehensive. I once nominated List of Christina Aguilera concert tours a FL but it did not get promoted because of the section "Notable live performances". Simon (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks but I think it is impossible to keep track of her live performances before she was an established artist. This is as comprehensive as possible list of live performances by Lady Gaga at her concerts and notable events. -- Frankie talk 07:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
@Calvin999: and @HĐ:, can I request for your assessment now? —IB [ Poke ] 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest, it does meet all of the criteria, it's well put together and sourced, so I guess I Support. — Calvin999 09:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Very well written article, but all of Gaga's articles are.--MaranoFan (talk) 09:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- To be honest I am still reluctant to vote per my comment above. Perhaps I'd keep neutral in this discussion and let others vote instead. Great list anyway, Simon (talk) 10:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you to all of you for the support!!! GagaNutellatalk 19:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- The above comments say this list is exhaustive but I disagree. According to this list Applause only had one televised performance, a quick youtube search reveals many more. There are many radio performances which have not been included. I presumed festival performances are intentionally not included as they are considered a tour date, however what about the likes of radio ones big weekend, the capital ball, itunes festival etc which are slightly more unique? What about the Christmas and Thanksgiving specials she did? What about performances at night clubs? Performances on the Alan Carr show? I have limited knowledge of her live performances and can quickly identify these gaps so I'm sure a more thorough investigation would discover more.
-
- I was also thinking about the festivals. Maybe creat a new section. I will add more performances too. GagaNutellatalk 20:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: why the only mention of the touring locations is in the Born This Way description and the Promotional concert subsection? Every other tour FL (even this less detailed approach) says where the performers went! igordebraga ≠ 19:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well, that is because her concert tours were worldwide, which will read repetitive if I add. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- But that Michael Jackson article I linked there also put it. Anyway, included, and am willing to Support this list (like other pop singers, Gaga has a really dedicated fanbase on the wiki). igordebraga ≠ 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
WCW Light Heavyweight Championship
Another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s, albeit a fair bit less interesting than my last nomination. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE X 12:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
List of U.S. Highways in Michigan
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because this is the next in the series of lists on Michigan's state highway system. The product of research on and off over the last decade, this is the one page on the Internet that so comprehensively covers the topic of the United States Numbered Highways (US Highways) in the Great Lakes State and would join List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway at this level. Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Aren't all the current special routes business routes? Why not just call them business routes instead of special routes when referring to them in the Description section.
- The footnote for "MSHD & Rand McNally (1935a)" doesn't work.
- Do you think the US 2 and US 141 entries can be combined into one row with the combined length of the two sections following the format here?
- Isn't carferry supposed to be one word? You use both the one word and two word formats in the table.
- Do you think you can indicate what replaced the Bus. US 127 in Mason?
- Do you think you can add a photo gallery for the special routes?
- Why is there a long line (———) in the MDOT map refs? Dough4872 02:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
@Dough4872: replies:
- Because the heading below says "special routes", which it has to since there are alternate, business, bypass and truck routes listed.
- Fixed.
- I don't think that does the two highways proper justice when other resources treat them separately, including our infobox and RD section which divides them into the two sections. Also, that format does not ensure that the HR lines up across the columns, while actually putting them in separate rows does.
- Fixed, standardized on separate words for consistency with the SS Badger article.
- Added, but you might not like that answer.
- There aren't that many photos of business routes available, so I decided to omit a gallery for now.
- That's a standard notation in reference lists to indicate that the author there is the same as the author in the preceding entry.
Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Issues addressed. Dough4872 03:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I took a look and couldn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Mohanlal filmography
- Nominator(s): Inside the Valley (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a comprehensive list of films, theatre, songs, and other credits of Indian actor Mohanlal, a matinee idol and one of the finest actors in Indian cinema. The list is copy edited, reviewed, and reference checked by experienced editors. Looking forward to all helpful comments for improving it. Inside the Valley (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Dr. Blofeld A bit sad that the nominator couldn't wait even a week for me to attend to this. Me not reviewing it within three days was dismissed by Inside the Valley as "not interested". Anyway..
"In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in Malayalam cinema.[6][7] " -seems a very sweeping statement to make, so you're saying that comedy films in malayalam cinema only began in the mid 80s? Don't believe it.
- "a landmark film which starred almost all actors in Malayalam cinema." -all actors??
It looks OK, I guess you'd expect some detail given over 300 films. The prose is a little plodding though and could use sharpening up a little.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am extremely sorry Dr. Blofeld, I was stupid to do that. And sorry to all other editors who felt bad about my act. A couple of hours ago, I actually came here to withdraw my nomination for starting a second review. But after seeing the comments of both you and Kailash, I changed my decision. I had made some changes.
"In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in Malayalam cinema." - Actually this is true, full fledged comedy films came only in 1980s. It's director Priyadarshan ( of Poochakkoru Mookkuthi), who is known as the pioneer of comedy films in Malayalam. Did you know that the period 1980-1995 is commonly referred as the "Golden period" of Malayalam cinema for kick starting a variety of genres. I had made a minor change which now reads as "In 1984 he starred in the lead role in Poochakkoru Mookkuthi, a comedy film whose success pioneered the rise of the genre in 1980s.". If you feel it's still not acceptable, please tell what should I change, I will do that."a landmark film which starred almost all actors in Malayalam cinema." -all actors?? - Actually not. It's "almost all". All actors (except 2 or 3) in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA) acted in the film (without payment). Almost every actor in Malayalam cinema is a member of the association. I have changed it that way. "a landmark film which starred almost all actors in the guild of Malayalam film actors - AMMA".This is actually a cut-short version to maintain the word count in the lead. Only mentioned about the major of the major events in his career.--Inside the Valley (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Corrected "Poochakkoru Mookkuthi..", "landmark film" and the prose also, I believe. --Inside the Valley (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Kailash
- "the romantic drama Manjil Virinja Pookkal" - But its article defines it as romantic thriller.
- Relink anti-hero as antihero.
- "Mohanlal is said to have got the nickname "Lalettan" after the character name in the 1987 romantic comedy Sarvakalashala" - By whom? Or is it a rumour?
- "comical tragedy" - tragicomedy?
- Delink "motion picture" as it is a common term.
- I still find many uses of Filmibeat as a source. It fails WP:RS, so please replace or remove them.
- Daily Mail (unfortunately) and IndiaGlitz too fail WP:RS, and I know they can be replaced.
More comments will follow. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done all the corrections you said.--Inside the Valley (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think there is no other major issue with the article. Just re-add the films you removed with more reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Re-added one film of the 3 removed from "producer" credits. I tried my best, but there are no reliable sources for Kanmadam and Olympian Anthony Adam (produced by Pranavam). It will surely get some sources in future, which I will add. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- About OAA, I'm not sure about the credibility of this source, but it looks like an equivalent to Ilankai Tamil Sangam. Then there's this that can be used for Kanmadam. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your effort. But unfortunately, these sources does not cite that Mohanlal is the producer. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Added and sourced. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- About OAA, I'm not sure about the credibility of this source, but it looks like an equivalent to Ilankai Tamil Sangam. Then there's this that can be used for Kanmadam. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Re-added one film of the 3 removed from "producer" credits. I tried my best, but there are no reliable sources for Kanmadam and Olympian Anthony Adam (produced by Pranavam). It will surely get some sources in future, which I will add. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think there is no other major issue with the article. Just re-add the films you removed with more reliable sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment from Jimknut
- It looks like the sorting needs some attention since names of characters and directors do not sort by last names. Jimknut (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for that information. I had fixed the sorting for the names of characters and directors. --Inside the Valley (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
Resolved comments from Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
* 'Casino Films' , 'Cheers Films' — these don't appear to need single (or double) marks (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS). To give them more emphasis, maybe rephrase as "In that year, he co-founded Casino Films,[a] the motion picture production company, which later produced ..."
|
- Thanks Ojorojo, that was helpful. --Inside the Valley (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Support There have been many improvements. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Cirt
- Bit problematic writing style and overly long sentences.
- Lots of awkward wording throughout, could use significant copy edit.
- http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Mohanlal_filmography = is pretty good actually, shows a "google cache" for one link, better to use Internet Archive or Web Citation tools.
- Over usage of run-on-sentences and lots of over comma usage.
— Cirt (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Made some changes.
- User:Ojorojo is currently helping with copy editing suggestions.
- Fixed.
- Made some changes.
- Don't know whether it resolved all the grammatical problems you find out. I wish you had specified the sentences. I could do better if you do so. --Inside the Valley (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Famous Hobo I'll look this over tomorrow when I get the chance, but just doing a quick look over now. One thing that caught my eye was the singer section. Why is that in this list, when the list is about cinema, theatrical, and radio performances? Any song related stuff should go in a discography list, like Madonna albums discography and Madonna filmography. Also, why seperate sections for acting and producing? Most of the films he's produced, he's also acted in, so why not do something along the lines of Natalie Portman filmography, where the producer roles are listed in the notes section. The latter of my two comments is just a thought, though I would like to see the singer section removed. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Removed the singer section. But the seperate table for "producer" make sense here. Mohanlal owns 3 production companies. Two co-owned and one his own company. Independent section for that gives better understanding for the readers. Also limiting it to the "notes" will make it random on the long list (above 300 films), making it difficult to the readers searching for his producer credits. --Inside the Valley (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- NOTE: Please respond, below entire review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! Can you please move your comments, below mine, so they don't break apart my numbered list of comments? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- User talk page spamming: FLC nominator has been User talk page spamming to numerous users about this Featured content discussion. That is inappropriate behavior. — Cirt (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. Significant serious concerns about user talk page spamming in an attempt to impact the outcome of this Featured content discussion. Poor writing quality. Run-on sentences. Overusage of commas. Failure to use article words such as "a" and "the". Not featured quality at this time. FLC nominator should be sanctioned or at the very least warned against spamming user talk pages in the future. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
RegretfulOppose – FOA, thanks to the nominator for working with the article. To begin with, the article (table) has some serious sourcing issues. I checked the refs. for a lot many films in the 80s. They clearly fail WP:V as they don't even confirm the actor's presence in the film; the roles aren't covered by the sources either. Considering that these films belonged to the pre-internet era, it's almost impossible to source them through online refs. The prose looks confusing, and the lead reads much like a fan page. Unless we have a biography (book) on the actor (which at least lists down the films), the article is incapable of ever becoming an FL. On a related note, the article has changed (still changing) a lot during the review. These improvements should've really been made outside the FLC. —Vensatry (Talk) 06:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
@Cirt: If you can specify the sentences and point out the problems, I can fix it. Every user may not feel the same way you think about the grammatical errors and the spamming issue. Spamming is subjective, hence spam messages are different for each user. If my message regarding the FLC was an unwanted subject. Then it is definitely a spam. You can always ignore or delete it and warn me. But I don't think I have "spammed" every user talk pages I messaged. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly is WP:VOTESTACK. You could've notified the relevant wikiprojects and invited (active) participants for the peer review. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
@Vensatry: There is a source from Malayala Manorama which list the films acted by Mohanlal. It was published in 2011, so films upto that point is listed (here). Can this be included in the "external links" or anything like that. I agree that the article changed a lot, but all improvements was as per the reviews here. --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's WP:MIRROR for sure. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- How are you so "sure" ?. Malayala Manorama is a highly reputed news agency, they don't have to mirror Wikipedia. It's reliable. --Inside the Valley (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- They have clearly taken this from our article. A lot many reliable sources (including India's leading daily) sometimes copy stuff from WP. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- How are you so clear ? India's leading daily may have, but MM has no history of copying stuff from Wiki. Words like "sure" and "clearly" sounds like you have found something. Can you prove it ? --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because, the page (much like 'Rediff specials') resembles a fan portal. They have clearly lifted it from WP; you may check with the page history if you want. Besides, there's no indication that they've done any research on their side. I wouldn't consider MM as a reliable source in FA/FL level articles. —Vensatry (Talk) 18:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- How are you so clear ? India's leading daily may have, but MM has no history of copying stuff from Wiki. Words like "sure" and "clearly" sounds like you have found something. Can you prove it ? --Inside the Valley (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- They have clearly taken this from our article. A lot many reliable sources (including India's leading daily) sometimes copy stuff from WP. —Vensatry (Talk) 14:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- How are you so "sure" ?. Malayala Manorama is a highly reputed news agency, they don't have to mirror Wikipedia. It's reliable. --Inside the Valley (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, spamming is not subjective. It is a violation of WP:CANVASS and, specifically, WP:VOTESTACK. — Cirt (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose per Vensatry, and the fact this has been at FLC for a month and the prose is still terrible (i.e. the three obvious errors in "In 1978, he started acting at age 18 with a minor comedic role in the unreleased film Thiranottam, before making screen debut in 1980 as antagonist in the romance film Manjil Virinja Pookkal.") Laura Jamieson (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Additional comments after revisit
- I checked the lead. There are incredible claims that are either misattributed or fail WP:V:
- The very first line: "who has starred in both blockbuster and art house films for independent filmmakers" is one such example.
- "His portrayal of Narendran, a sadistic husband, received recognition and the film developed a cult status in Indian cinema". This is quite a claim; the source says Malayalam cinema (I'd corrected this one though).
- "The Indian media named Mohanlal a "superstar" after the success of the crime drama Rajavinte Makan (1986). Again, not clear whether the 'Superstar' tag is confined to Malayalam cinema. But when you say 'Indian media' it sounds like he was referred to as the 'Indian Superstar'.
- "In Irupatham Noottandu (1987), he portrayed mobster Sagar Alias Jacky — which became a cult figure in crime dramas ever since its release" Again, Malayalam cinema or Indian cinema?
- Ditto with "His tragicomedy Chithram (1988) ran continuously for 58 weeks in one theatre, a record still unbroken"
- "In 2000, Mohanlal's action drama, Narasimham, became the highest-grossing Malayalam film at the time. His character Induchoodan has since attracted a cult following" The source (metromatinee.com) isn't reliable. Besides, it doesn't say the film was the highest'-grossing Malayalam film'. Also, it tells nothing about the character attaining cult status.
—Vensatry (Talk) 08:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
List of awards and nominations received by Bradley Cooper
- Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Participation Guide | |
---|---|
Support | |
FrB.TG, SNUGGUMS | |
Comments/No vote | |
Miyagawa, Nergaal | |
Oppose | |
So my last FLC didn't go so well, and I'm hoping this one will even things out. There's not a whole lot to say about the list, aside from the fact that I used List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio as a role model (as you might quickly notice). It also received a Direct nomination in it's peer review, which I didn't even know was a thing, so that's pretty cool. Anyway, that's all I have to say, so have at it. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments by FrB.TG
I am happy to see a list based on DiCaprio's accolades for obvious reasons. Note that I have also done spot check for sources. In addition I see that you are an amazing source reviewer. I will be forever in your debt, if you spot check my ongoing FAC, which is all it needs now. -- Frankie talk 16:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Some more:
|
- Support after an exhaustive review. Note that I have also done spot checks in the above comments. -- Frankie talk 16:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean why is this table formatted with each award getting its own section as opposed to what List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier does? If that's the case, then that's personally how I like it. That's also how the DiCaprio list formats it, which I used as a model. If that's not what you were asking, then my apologies. I'm still "relatively" new to lists, and the formatting is still pretty annoying to understand. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there are 20+ sections which seems a bit much. Is there a guideline in WP:TV suggesting that this format is better than one with merged tables? At some point I worked on List of accolades received by House which has the lesser-importance awards merged. Nergaal (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nergaal: Sorry for the late response. While I do agree that the section do become extreme after a while, that's just how most awards and nominations lists are formatted. For example, for actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Vidya Balan, Priyanka Chopra) and musicians (Taylor Swift, John Legend, Lady Gaga). In particular, Lady Gaga has over 75 sections. As for WP:TV, I couldn't find anything regarding formats for awards lists, but then again I may not have looked hard enough. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to ask the same question. I'm not sure why personal awards lists have evolved like that - specifically actors. When I worked up List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry (nominated elsewhere) it didn't even occur to me to split the table up. Admittedly that's a much shorter table - but I have started messing around with List of awards and nominations received by William Shatner which features a much longer table (also doesn't have the military/civilian table split that the Roddenberry one does, also it's very much under development, I need to fix those red links and replace all the inherited IMDB citations). It's the same with film/TV - for some reason the lists use one big table, and the TV ones use multiple little tables. I'd say it was the multiple years, but certainly with the couple I did, the trailers and home media releases caused awards to be won in years other than the year of theatrical release. But like Famous Hobo says, I don't think there is a specific design used and it'll simply be up to what any individual editor thinks is the best representation of the information. Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- If we're going of personal preference, then I really like this style where each award is given it's own section. While it may be a nightmare for mobile users, I like this design because it specifies what each award is about, and with individual sections, a user won't have to scroll through dozens of random awards to see a specific award, like the Tony Awards or the Academy Awards. By the way Miyagawa, nice subtle promotion of your FLC, I can do a source review if you need one. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to ask the same question. I'm not sure why personal awards lists have evolved like that - specifically actors. When I worked up List of awards and nominations received by Gene Roddenberry (nominated elsewhere) it didn't even occur to me to split the table up. Admittedly that's a much shorter table - but I have started messing around with List of awards and nominations received by William Shatner which features a much longer table (also doesn't have the military/civilian table split that the Roddenberry one does, also it's very much under development, I need to fix those red links and replace all the inherited IMDB citations). It's the same with film/TV - for some reason the lists use one big table, and the TV ones use multiple little tables. I'd say it was the multiple years, but certainly with the couple I did, the trailers and home media releases caused awards to be won in years other than the year of theatrical release. But like Famous Hobo says, I don't think there is a specific design used and it'll simply be up to what any individual editor thinks is the best representation of the information. Miyagawa (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Nergaal: Sorry for the late response. While I do agree that the section do become extreme after a while, that's just how most awards and nominations lists are formatted. For example, for actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Vidya Balan, Priyanka Chopra) and musicians (Taylor Swift, John Legend, Lady Gaga). In particular, Lady Gaga has over 75 sections. As for WP:TV, I couldn't find anything regarding formats for awards lists, but then again I may not have looked hard enough. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, there are 20+ sections which seems a bit much. Is there a guideline in WP:TV suggesting that this format is better than one with merged tables? At some point I worked on List of accolades received by House which has the lesser-importance awards merged. Nergaal (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean why is this table formatted with each award getting its own section as opposed to what List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier does? If that's the case, then that's personally how I like it. That's also how the DiCaprio list formats it, which I used as a model. If that's not what you were asking, then my apologies. I'm still "relatively" new to lists, and the formatting is still pretty annoying to understand. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS |
---|
Looks pretty good so far. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|
List of presidents of the Linguistic Society of America
While not the kind of list I feel is typically here, I think it merits inclusion as a featured list. In its 90+ years of existance, the Linguistic Society of America has had a number of presidents who are and were some of the foremost linguists in the field. While a rather humble list-lacking in tables, sorting, and much more than a picture, it is comprehensive of all presidents, is structured reasonably, stable, and is up to my taste for style. I think it falls well within the FL criteria and hope you agree. Wugapodes (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Dharmadhyaksha
- Quite a plane list of people with years. Isn't there anything at all to write about the topic? Like maybe some controversial selections of presidents, controversies created while in chair (if related to the chair), someone opting out of presidency, their duties, eligibility criteria and maybe more. Also, if its just a plane list with no other information, why is it a standalone list and not merged into Linguistic Society of America? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for the comment, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I know it's a rather unassuming list. The reason it is standalone is because of the size of it, which is why it was spun out in the first place. Because of the length (and that it will grow annually), it would dominate the article. I have not come across any sources on controversies. I did add in more information on succession. While I recognize it's not as interesting as many other lists here, I still believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Do you have further thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- A ~4kB list in ~30kB article isn't really that big. Plus the readable prose on main article is only ~13kB. WP:SIZERULE does not justify this split. If you are saying the list would look very long in the main article, there is always an option to collapse in table format. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comment, and sorry it took so long to get back to you. I know it's a rather unassuming list. The reason it is standalone is because of the size of it, which is why it was spun out in the first place. Because of the length (and that it will grow annually), it would dominate the article. I have not come across any sources on controversies. I did add in more information on succession. While I recognize it's not as interesting as many other lists here, I still believe it fulfills the FL criteria. Do you have further thoughts? Wugapodes (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Inna discography
- Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is well written and reliable. I also followed the style and structure from Alexandra Stan's discography. --Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Dharmadhyaksha
- "certified" should wikilink to Music recording sales certification instead of Certification.
-
- Done
- I have no much experience with song related list. So please check this point with others too.
How important and encyclopaedic is Youtube hit count in any article? Youtube is known for click frauds and the number of times the video is clicked on (not even fully seen) is immaterial. I think that bit in the lead and from the very first para should go away. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done the first one, but I will for now not remove the YouTube paragraph until another experienced user thinks so. I think it's something very notably for her career, and it also further shows that her songs are successful. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from shaidar cuebiyar
- Lead:
- she already sold > she sold Superfluous.
-
- Done
-
- "sold over one million singles": claim needs to be verified by a reliable certifying organisation, e.g. SNEP. A daily newspaper is not reliable for certification or sales claims. Once verified add a hard space between one and million, e.g. one million [check wikicode]. Repeat for similar instances elsewhere.
-
- Done Removed the statement. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- "reached the top ten...": How is Romanian charting on a blog spot, reliable? According to WP:Recommended charts their singles (radio play) information can be found at Media Forest.
-
-
- I don't know what you want to point out here? The top-ten mention was done concerning the Media Forest chart. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- According to WP:Verifiability policy, Self-published sources such as blogs are usually not reliable. Ref [31]a is a blog: its relationship to Media Forest is not obvious. This needs to be established clearly or the Romanian positions are not verified and should be deleted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I just read his blogger profile, where he explains that he copied all the information he used for the blog from rt100.com and the Kiss FM podcasts after Romanian Top 100's missing. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- This confirms that the source is self-published and hence unreliable. Are there any archival copies? e.g. Wayback Machine has these.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Replaced the source with the Wayback Machine publishings. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: its not sufficient to just cite all the Wayback listings: you'll need to find the specific archiveurls which show her singles on the Romanian charts.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- I just read his blogger profile, where he explains that he copied all the information he used for the blog from rt100.com and the Kiss FM podcasts after Romanian Top 100's missing. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- According to WP:Verifiability policy, Self-published sources such as blogs are usually not reliable. Ref [31]a is a blog: its relationship to Media Forest is not obvious. This needs to be established clearly or the Romanian positions are not verified and should be deleted.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you want to point out here? The top-ten mention was done concerning the Media Forest chart. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- "Her career began in 2008...": Not if she signed with Roton and started recording in 2007.
-
-
- In 2007, she started under the name "Alessandra", but in 2008 under Inna. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Change it to the year at which the artist first started – regardless of the name started as.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- In 2007, she started under the name "Alessandra", but in 2008 under Inna. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done
-
-
"worldwide"? Only charting that is given for the single is in European countries: this is hardly worldwide.I see Japan, now: sorry. 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done
-
- Delink second mention of "Amazing". Similarly delink previously linked terms in the rest of the Lead.
-
- Done
-
- number one position > number-one position Adjectival form is hyphenated, noun form is not.
-
- Done
-
- Delete ; both of the tracks were majorly successful Unnecessary exaggeration.
-
- Done
-
- Delete eventually Unnecessary.
-
- Done
-
- "17th best-selling single": Is there a reliable source?
-
- Done
-
- Don't link Crazy Sexy Wild twice, even if one is piped.
-
- Done
-
- Split long run-on sentences. e.g. the first sentence of third paragraph: end at Romania. Start new sentence with "More Than Friends"
-
- Done
-
- Delink 2nd mention of piped Inna (album)
-
- Done
-
- Reword Body and the Sun's first single: this is confusing as in the next couple of sentences we have "Diggy Down" as first release off Inna – shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done
- Wikitables:
- Where multiple refs are used check their order is numerical, e.g. at Note [A]
-
- Done
-
- Fix Polish albums chart piped link, e.g. [[OLiS|POL]] ZPAV is used for certifications: it verifies and supports OLiS, which is the charting authority.
-
- Done
-
- According to WP:Recommended charts, for aCharts in Poland: "This chart has been archived incorrectly or is taken from an impermissible chart. It cannot be used as a source." Replace it with one from OLiS or ZPAV Airplay.
-
- Done
-
- Hot Release date is not supported by ref [14], which says "Hot is released in the UK on 13 June". This article is written in May 2011: nearly two years after date given in this table.
-
- Done
-
- Should UFPR be UPFR? In any case fix pipe, e.g. [[Uniunea Producătorilor de Fonograme din România|UPFR]] not the artist's label.
-
- Done
-
- I Am the Club Rocker Release date is not supported by ref [20], which has January 2012. Also fix ref's title format to suit wp MoS.
-
- Done
-
- Curiously the 1st album charted in the top 30 in Poland but the 2nd did not, however the 2nd album is gold but the 1st is not.
-
-
- I know; I searched for peak positions, but I didn't find anything. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done
-
-
- Party Never Ends, again release date not supported by ref given! New article is written in late April, which says, "hat ihr inzwischen drittes Studioalbum Party Never Ends veröffentlicht." It does not specify an early March release.
-
- Done
-
- Inna, four from four! The ref has "Pe 15 octombrie, INNA va lansa cel de-al patrulea album “INNA”, piese inregistrate..." Not 30 October.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done
-
- Reissued albums? How is this notable enough for a separate entry or even a table in a discography? A Note/description at the parent album's article would suffice.
-
- Done
-
- How is Last.fm a reliable source? It is a user generated wiki. A better source is required for Inna's singles.
-
- Done
-
- How is LetsSingIt reliable for charting information?
-
- Done
-
- How is FaceBook reliable for charting information?
-
- Done
-
- aCharts not reliable for Bulgarian charts, use Nielsen.
-
-
- Is there any posibility to search through the archives by entering a keyword anywhere? I really have no time to search for Inna's songs. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Replaced Bulgarian peaks with Russian charting.
- Is there any posibility to search through the archives by entering a keyword anywhere? I really have no time to search for Inna's songs. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- According to source: "Déjà Vu" & "Amazing" were released from the album but no year is given. You need a better source.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done
-
- For Czech charting modify the Note at the end of each sub-ref, e.g. For first one Note: User may have to specify the date range (next to RADIO – TOP 100): select 200951,52 from the drop down menu and then click on Zobrazit (display in Czech). Thereafter use Note: select 201016 Modify subsequently with the relevant date(s).
-
- Done
-
- For German charting I see another listing for [Inna] as opposed to Inna (Dance). Neither listing shows charting information on singles after "Sun Is Up". You need more sub-refs here.
-
-
- Added a sub-ref to Spanishcharts.com. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- This is a clever work-around, however for a single page ref (using your idea) try Swiss charts summary table.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done Changed it now.
-
- Added a sub-ref to Spanishcharts.com. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- For Italian charts, I don't see how is Hit Parade Italia supported by FIMI. If this can be shown, then combine sub-refs for singles in charting same year.
-
-
-
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Translating this, they seem to be reliable, as they had a magazine publication. Furthermore, they explain how their chart is based on sales, and they combine data from more official Italian charts, FIMI also. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced, I don't see any FIMI approval for Hit Parade Italia. I don't know why Hung Medien shows no Italian charting (see here and the Swiss charts summary, above). FIMI has this for "Hot" at No. 36. I'm not sure if this is its peak position. I haven't trawled the archive for other Inna charting.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Translating this, they seem to be reliable, as they had a magazine publication. Furthermore, they explain how their chart is based on sales, and they combine data from more official Italian charts, FIMI also. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- For Spanish charts, I'm not seeing individual singles positions at this url. Try "Hot" listing which also gives other singles.
-
- Done
-
- For Swiss charts, similar problem to previous. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done
-
- At ref [46], I don't see year of release.
-
-
- They say that Inna will premiere the track, "10 Minutes", today, which gives us all the information we need, as the article was written on January 24, 2010. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I missed that one.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- They say that Inna will premiere the track, "10 Minutes", today, which gives us all the information we need, as the article was written on January 24, 2010. Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- At ref [52], it talks about the music video; weak support for year of release.
-
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- At ref [53], years of releases is not obvious.
-
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- At ref [54], track is released but no year given.
-
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- At ref [56], talks music video; weak support.
-
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- At ref [68], music video; weak support. shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar: Responded to some of your comments already done by me. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer that you don't strike out my comments: there's at least three instances where you've struck out my comments but have not fully addressed the issues. You can strike out your own comments, if you wish.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Unstroke all; sorry for that! You haven't answered my question regarding the Bulgarian peaks yet. I'm going to solve your other comments without the 'done'-mark when I'll have time. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about the tardy response. I'd use aCharts to provide the dates to narrow the search run.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- For Bulgarian charting: You'll need to provide specific cites rather than the whole non-searched listing.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Now I have no time, but later I'm going to solve your other comments. I changed Bulgaria with Russia, as she has more chart positions there. Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Done your complete comments! Cartoon network freak (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about the tardy response. I'd use aCharts to provide the dates to narrow the search run.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar Unstroke all; sorry for that! You haven't answered my question regarding the Bulgarian peaks yet. I'm going to solve your other comments without the 'done'-mark when I'll have time. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer that you don't strike out my comments: there's at least three instances where you've struck out my comments but have not fully addressed the issues. You can strike out your own comments, if you wish.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Shaidar cuebiyar: Responded to some of your comments already done by me. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Done Changed source Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
With my issues resolved, I am now willing to support this FLC.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from AJona1992
- These were my edits to the article, I could not comment without fixing some grammatical errors.
- According to the infobox Inna has 23 singles but the lead says 22?
- I don't see why you need a source for when the album was released if they already have an article?
- The notes needs to be clarified, saying "Sales for Hot as of May 2011" for each country does not help the reader identify where sales figures are from and when they were updated. You can simply just say "Worldwide (or any other country) sales figures for Hot as of May 2011".
- Why is Airplay 100 and Romanian Top 100 italicized? – jona ✉ 16:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna
Ayrton Senna doesn't have the most Grand Prix wins; that accolade goes to Michael Schumacher. But Senna, perhaps due to the manner and timing of his death, is revered as one of the best Formula One drivers of all time. Each time a driver passes his wins total, as Vettel and Hamilton have done recently, it is considered a significant milestone. I put off nominating this list for a while, as I had concerns about stability, as I knew that the WikiProject weren't widely in favour. However, it has since survived an AfD, and so I am happy to now list it here. As always, all comments, thoughts and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments I have no problem with this list meeting 3b or being notable, as Harrias states, when Vettel and Hamilton passed Senna's total is widely covered in the mainstream media.
- "He entered Formula One in 1984 with the Toleman team, but after one season, he bought out his contract and moved to Lotus." ref?
- "McLaren. With McLaren..." not great having McLaren twice in quick succession. Perhaps Senna would win all three of his world championships...with the team?
- "He wanted to move to Williams after 1992, but was prevented from doing so by a clause in Alain Prost's contract." ref?
- "He did make the move for 1994,..." -> He moved to Williams in 1994,..."
- You need to add a symbol to go with the colour in the table for accessibility purposes
- Maybe the Race column should be Grand Prix, seeing as that is what they — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs)
-
- Key needs to explain why 1988, 1990 & 1991 are in yellow. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Review by Cowlibob
- "is considered by many" perhaps "some" would be a more neutral word here
- "21 April 1985" no need to the repeat the year as we already know it was in 1985.
- "In 1988, " reword needed to avoid saying 1988 twice in short succession.
- For the references, is it possible to have more a diverse set of sources as the vast majority are cited to ESPN F1?
- Less shouting in the references. AUTOSPORT should be Autosport, F1PULSE should be F1 Pulse
- What makes F1 Pulse, speedcafe, Formula One Art & Genius, StatsF1 reliable sources?
- Need info in the key that 1988, 1990, 1991 are highlighted in yellow because those were seasons he was world champion.
That's a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@WP:FLC director and delegates: The list nominator has indicated that currently they are not able to continue the nomination. It's been nearly a month since last comments. Perhaps it's time to put this one on ice for now. [[1]] Cowlibob (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, feel free. I'm not going to get to this now unfortunately. Harrias talk 07:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of songs recorded by Olly Murs
I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive list of every song recorded by the English singer Olly Murs. He has released four albums and appeared on other songs, and there is a good sized list of his songs here. — Calvin999 12:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Famous Hobo I'm willing to take a look at this
General Comments
- Every picture is lacking an alt text
- I am a little concerned about the length of the lead. While it was fine with the Little Mix list as they had recently released a new album, Murs said he was going to be doing a new album this year (or at least that's what I found from a quick Google search). With a new batch of songs, the lead may be too long to handle it. So while it may be fine for now, the lead will need to be condensed quite a bit with the next album.
- I'm not worried about that. Until an album is actually released, it's not worth thinking about. Albums can be delayed, and they are more often than not, not released when they are originally slated for. When an album is released, the lead can be condensed down. — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- A bit in conjunction with the previous point, the lead seems a bit sporadic, jumping from talking about lyrical content, composition, and co-writers at random. However, I don't see as a problem, since the list is about the songs themselves.
- That's because it's per album, not all together. — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Lead
- The singer came to prominence after he came second on the sixth series of The X Factor in 2009, losing to Joe McElderry. Reword to "after he finished in second place..."
- Despite being the runner up, Simon Cowell's record label Syco revealed that they had signed Murs as a joint-venture with Epic following the show in February 2010. link joint-venture, as some people might not know what that is.
- Written by Adam Argyle and Martin Brammer, "I Blame Hollywood" draws influence from pop-rock. Link pop rock
- "Dance with Me Tonight" is a 50s saxophone style record with elements of Doo-wop,[11][12] while the track "Just Smile" is reminiscent of the work of Burt Bacharach.[12]The disco-pop Add a space after ref 12
- Murs co-wrote the track "Let Me In" with Paul Weller, which was described by Neil McCormick of The Daily Telegraph as "unexpected". Can you go into more detail about why the reviewer found it to be unexpected?
- The reviewer doesn't say, and I can't speculate on what why myself. — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Digital Spy writer Amy Davison likened the disco track "Did You Miss Me?" to Justin Timberlake's song "Take Back the Night". Link disco, and the sentence is missing a ref
Songs
- I believe "Inner Ninja" should be below "In Case You Didn't Know"
- It is? — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
References
- Instead of just BBC, Ref 1 should be BBC News, Ref 4 should be Newsbeat, and Ref 7 and 12 should be BBC Music
- The name in Ref 10 is messed up
- In Ref 22, it should be The Daily Telegraph, not just The Telegraph
- I'd piped it to omit 'Daily'. — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
That's all I can see, nice list as always. In exchange for this review, would you mind taking a look at my FLC? Famous Hobo (talk) 00:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Famous Hobo. Yes I will. — Calvin999 09:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Full disclosure: I am a WIki Cup participant and I also have a Feature Article (CMLL World Heavyweight Championship) and Feature List (Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship) candidates in need of input. Not that it's a factor in my review but it would be appreciated
- List
- "The one" sorts by like it comes after "Y"?? Not sure how
- The ref columns are usually not sortable
- The reference for "you are not alone" should use the previously defined refernece "You Are Not Alone".
- The text
- "runner up" should be "runner-up"
- Other stuff
- first image needs alt text
- The link in reference 1 and 25 have changed, they still redirect but it may be worth updating the link to the current version to prevent future link rot.
- @Calvin999: - That's all I got, not really a lot of issues, good work so far. MPJ-US 11:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've done all. — Calvin999 15:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Done all Giants2008 — Calvin999 21:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC) |
Do I needs supports for this to be promoted despite everything being done thus far Giants2008 ? — Calvin999 09:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of cities in the Philippines
- Nominator(s): Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it contains well-organized relevant (political and geographical) data about all existing cities in the Philippines in a single sortable table. The table has been revised several times in the past for optimal/proper sorting and visual appeal. Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - numerous issues; list appears a ways from FL quality.
-
- Lead is almost non-existent. See List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FLC, below) for an example of a more comprehensive lead
- Chunks of overview are unreferenced
- The table is almost entirely unreferenced
- Table is missing rowscopes, and seems to be using a double-table header to move the sort button down?
- Random provinces are italicized in the table, as are some effective dates
- City charter should be a reference attached to the approval date, not a column of external links
- "Dates of inauguration/organization" is a section floating off on its own, which should be above the table or an actual note
- Many of the references appear to just be sentences with a link, rather than formatted references
- The biggest deal-breaker is that the table is unreferenced, with just notes pointing off to other websites where you can find the information. It needs actual references. It's possible that you can get away with citing columns of the table to a specific page- like List of municipalities in Ontario does, but only if an entire column can be cited to a single webpage; there is still the second big issue that the text surrounding the table is a bit anemic. --PresN 19:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for bringing up these issues. I have finished exhaustively replacing all the bare external links with formatted references and inline citations. I have also added row scopes (based on what was done in List of municipalities in Ontario). The double table header was done to make the wide table more compact in the limited space by creating a separate row for sorting. The italics in those provinces and dates were intentional and have a meaning; a table note at the bottom of the table describes the reason/s why they were italicized. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
-
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla Cricket Stadium
I am nominating this for featured list because I had put a lot of hard work to write this article, specially on research. Ikhtiar H (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Talk) |
---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Talk) 08:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Comments
- "due its location..." -> due to its location
- "Sohag Gazi is the only bowler to achieve this record here on Test debut," be explicit that it was a five wicket haul he achieved, it's not too clear at the moment
- "Rabada would pick up..." -> Rabada picked up
- "Along with this, Rabada would pick up a hat-trick,[17] becoming the first debutant bowler to do so in the process and also his figures of six wickets for 16 runs remains the best by a bowler on debut." This sentence reads awkwardly, I would consider re-wording it.
- "Stuart Binny holds the best ODI bowling figures of 6 wickets four runs." missing a word before four
NapHit (talk) 14:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- NapHit corrected your comments. Had a hard time with the third one though. Feel free to check them. Ikhtiar H (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium
Continuing my obsession towards cricket lists, I'd like to nominate this for FLC. I've modeled this based on the existing FLs. This is my first FLC in three months, so I'd like to have a thorough review. Thanks, —Vensatry (Talk) 08:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Quick comments –
"India's Gundappa Viswanath and Mohammed Azharuddin had scored the most centuries at the venue with three each." "had" → "have"?"As of February 2016, 35 Test centuries have been scored at the stadium." The list and lead photo caption both give a figure of 32 centuries.In the Azharuddin photo caption, "had" can be removed.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Giants2008: Fixed all. Thanks —Vensatry (Talk) 07:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Really poorly written article with non reliable sources. 213.205.251.56 (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Struck vote of a vandal only IP which has been blocked. Cowlibob (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @WP:FLC director and delegates: The page has been constantly vandalised by a sock. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- This page, or the list? This page has been edited by an anonymous editor four times, most of that edit warring within a short period of time. Disruptive, but not at "protect the nomination" levels — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I meant this page. Just wanted to leave a note - it's a vandal (possibly a sock). —Vensatry (Talk) 15:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree. Feel free to revert the vandal IP. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Crisco 1492: - The edits are becoming very disruptive. —Vensatry (Talk) 09:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- Some facts in the lead need "As of".
- "The record for the highest score by an overseas player" --> "The record for the highest ODI score by an overseas player"
- "is the highest score by a batsman at this ground" --> "is the highest ODI score by a batsman at this ground"
Good work! Bharatiya29 14:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
|
Elmore James discography
I am nominating this for featured list because it is an informative discography of one of the most important blues musicians of the mid-twentieth century. Several of Elmore James' recordings are regarded as blues classics and his influence continues to be heard in contemporary blues as well as rock. His discography covers all of his known released recordings and is extensively referenced with many inline citations and goes beyond WP:DISCOGSTYLE and most FL discographies.
Since its creation in November 2013, it has been stable with no tendentious editing, vandalism, edit wars, etc. Recently, I have checked all the citations and have updated the reference and table formats. The lead has been rewritten and referenced. I look forward to constructive comments/suggestions to make this a FL. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from jimknut
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
* ""TV Mama", for which he provided guitar, was a number six chart hit for Joe Turner (better known as Big Joe Turner) in 1964." — Why not just say: "… was a number six chart hit for Big Joe Turner in 1964."?
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 19:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the headings A-side/B-side would look better as a row under Title
- In the headings it should be Catalogue No. rather than no.
- The heading should be Peak Chart Postion, with US as a row under it
- The first single, "Dust My Broom" has (not on B-side), which appears like there is no B-Side - it would be better listing the B-Side as "Catfish Blues" with an annotation that this was performed by Bobo Thomas.
- Similarly with "I Believe My Time Ain't Long" and "Knocking at Your Door" the B-side should be listed with annotation as to who it was preformed by.
- Rather than 'A blank space denotes a release that did not chart.' it should be '"—" denotes releases that did not chart.'
- Under compilation albums rather than 'Only one album by Elmore James appeared during his lifetime' it should be 'Only one album by Elmore James was released during his lifetime'.
- In the headings it should be Catalogue No. rather than no.
- The heading should be Peak Chart Postion, with US as a row under it.
- Posthumous releases should have a reference for each release verifying the release date
- In the headings A-side/B-side would look better as a row under Title
- On "It Hurts Me Too", the * next to 25 under chart position should be a footnote or annotation
- "It Hurts Me Too" (1957 recording) / "Elmore's Contribution to Jazz" - the comment (1957 recording) should be an annotation.
- "Bobby's Rock" (new) / "Make My Dreams Come True" (re-release of Flair 1031 B-side) - doesn't require the inclusion of (new), unless there is an explained reason. Also (re-release of Flair 1031 B-side) should be an annotation not listed under the title.
- Similarly for "Dust My Blues" (re-release of Flair 1074) / "Happy Home" (re-release of Flair 1069) - the details about the re-leases should be annotations not listed under title.
- Similarly for the Posthumous Releases the description should just be the title of the release and any extra notes should be an annotation. I realize that may result in a long list of annotations - the only other alternative I can think of is to have an extra 'Notes' column on the tables. Need to check with other FL discographies to see how they handle this issue.
- Discogs is not considered to be necessarily a reliable reference (as it is able to be self-edited). Is there somewhere else that can provide the same information, that is a more reliable source?
- The tables should have a title - ie 'List of singles, with selected chart positions', consistent with other FL discographies.
- The compilation album table should have "—" denotes a release that did not chart - or alternatively drop the chart position column.
Support all my comments have been addressed. Good luck with the nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons
- Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23
I am nominating this for featured list as part of a wider effort on improving Wikipedia coverage around F.C. United of Manchester. The list has been significantly improved by myself and @Delusion23, and has been kept updated ever since it was split out from the main article by @Sloclops in November 2015. We have modelled the list after other English football club's seasons lists, and I believe it meets all the criteria. Over the past few days, the list has had the lead added, and I have verified and referenced all data included in the list, and archived all references used to ensure stability of information. This is my first nomination of a featured list, so apologies if I got anything wrong. Suggestions and corrections are welcome, and either @Delusion23 or myself will be quite happy to implement them. Thanks for reviewing! odder (talk) 11:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- A couple of quick drive-by comments, mainly to remind me to come back later and do more :-)
- Seasons which are in progress are never normally included in lists of this type, suggest you remove it until the end of the season. If it is left in, change the league name to just National League North, rather than the odd-looking "National League National League North" as it is at the moment
- Done Removed the current season but moved the info to the talk page as it would be a shame to lose the work done. Del♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- "The club is owned and democratically run by their supporters" - you are referring to the club as both singular and plural in the same sentence, this is a grammatical nightmare :-P
- Done For consistency within the sentence I have changed "their" to "its". Del♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Seasons which are in progress are never normally included in lists of this type, suggest you remove it until the end of the season. If it is left in, change the league name to just National League North, rather than the odd-looking "National League National League North" as it is at the moment
- Back with more later.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers Chris, looking forward to more help getting this work to FL status :) Del♉sion23 (talk) 12:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of quick drive-by comments, mainly to remind me to come back later and do more :-)
- Oppose How is this nota fork? This club is semiprofessional with 10 seasons and gets a separate list???? Nergaal (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nergaal: While F.C. United is indeed a semi-professional football club, there is no doubt about their notability, despite the club only being founded in 2005. F.C. United consistently draw the highest home attendance at this level of English football, beating many clubs in the National League (level 5) as well as many clubs in Leage Two (level 4); they also consistently draw (relatively high) away attendances. The club is also immensely popular with the media, and has been the subject of books, short documentaries, and an uncountable number of press articles, reports and mentions. So that's it for the notability aspect; I don't think it's ever been debatable.
-
- As for this list being a fork: I am aware that it includes some information that is already present in the main article, however I have modelled the introduction after similar season lists for other English football clubs, and thought it was necessary that the introduction provide a short summary of the club's main achievements (I think the articles that I got this from were List of Aston Villa F.C. seasons and List of Liverpool F.C. seasons, perhaps also others). As this is my first nomination for a featured list, I realise I might have gotten things wrong, and if that's the case, then I'm very open and happy to fix them. If you have any particular suggestions in mind, please share them so I can improve the list. Thank you, odder (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Very brief, inclined to give the lead a once-over as it could be tightened and can't be bothered to list everything....
|
- Support - happy with changes, feels this now meets the criteria based on sourcing, structure and style. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'm happy that this meets the FL criteria. I don't have any concerns about the content split, as the main article is reaching the size where such splits should be expected. Miyagawa (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- "F.C. United are owned and democratically run by their supporters and operate" - you're still referring to FCUM as both singular and plural within the same sentence
- Uhm, unless I'm missing something, these verbs are all in the plural... odder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't know what I was thinking there, feel free to disregard that one :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uhm, unless I'm missing something, these verbs are all in the plural... odder (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- "F.C. United reached the Second Round of the FA Cup " - no reason for capitals on second round, these are not proper nouns, likewise first round shortly afterwards and fourth round a bit further on, etc
- Done 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the key the football is shown to indicate "league goals". Are the figures in the table definitely league only? If so, change the heading in the table to "top league goalscorer"
- Done Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is a Russian fan site (bit random :-)) really the only source for (presumably) the top scorer in the first season?
- Done The same data are available to download on F.C. United's own website in the form of a spreadsheet (see bottom of this page). I have added this to the article to supplement the Russian fan page version. I kept the fan page version as I believe it shows the same information in a more "user friendly" form. I have also added the references to the other rows as they are used for the source of all the top scorer stats. Hope this makes it less ambiguous. Thanks for the feedback. Del♉sion23 (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- "F.C. United are owned and democratically run by their supporters and operate" - you're still referring to FCUM as both singular and plural within the same sentence
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - all seems OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship
I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the format and level of quality of several other Mexican wrestling championship lists that I have brought through the FLC process. This version benefitted from ever single piece of feedback I have receieved so far, ensuring that it is consistent with previous submissions and deal with certain issues up front. ... MPJ-US 00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Review by PresN
Doffing my delegate hat to review.
- "From its creation in 1943 it was not promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions among others Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..." -> "Since its creation in 1943 it has not been promoted by one specific promotion but shared between many Mexican promotions. Among others, these include Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre..."
-
- Fixed
- "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately" -> "As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately"
-
- Fixed
- "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre but they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship." -> "Over the following years the title was promoted by various Mexican promotions, primarily Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre, though they did not assert an exclusive claim to the championship."
-
- Fixed
- "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns, Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign with no more than 11 days." -> "La Parka / L.A. Park and Pierroth Jr. are tied for most title reigns, with four reigns; Pierroth Jr. has the shortest reign at no more than 11 days."
-
- Fixed
- Note 6 says that the date when the championship was "vacated" is not known, but is that the right word? Wasn't it won by Guzman from Anaya? Vacated to me implies that there was a champion, then there wasn't.
-
- Fixed, quite a few of the notes were apparently copied and just had the dates updated, but some bonehead (that would be me) forgot to adjust the text. I believe I have made each not more specific to the champion it is associated with.
- Notes 7 and 8 have the same problem, except more so- 7 is about a reign that ended on an ambiguous date, while 8 is about one that started on an ambiguous date; they can't both be "vacated". This goes on for the next few notes- please come up with standardized wording.
-
- Fixed. As above
- In the Reigns by combined length table, reusing the same notes doesn't make sense because now the context is lacking as to which reign you're talking about out of several.
-
- I will take a look at the approach to notes for combined reigns, see if I can come up with a good solution to this.
- The 1951 vacation has a hyphen in the reign number column, instead of a dash like the others
-
- Fixed
- That's about it, since references is it's own review type now; didn't look closely at them. If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 17:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @PresN: - Thank you for your feedback, I will get to your list once I figure out the best way to tackle the notes for the combined reigns list. I appreciate your input and help to make this a better article.
- I think I got it figured out, simply list the figures used whenever there is a question of how long the reign really was. MPJ-US 22:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
I know little to nothing about wrestling so please help to clarify some of my comments.
That's it from a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
|
- Support Good list on a lesser known topic. One minor point, the PDF refs should have a page number listed where the information is found. Also that I have not performed a source check as the majority of the sources are in Spanish so I couldn't be confident that it would be valid but I accept them in good faith. Cowlibob (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments by FrB.TG
I have seen your QPQ requests at FLC (reminded me of myself). Anyway, I know very little about wrestling so that's all I could find. -- Frankie talk 10:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
- Support. Thank you for responding to my comments in a timely fashion. As a QPQ, I would appreciate it if you comment in my nomination. Not mandatory though. -- Frankie talk 13:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Miyagawa
- There's a bit of repetition between the first and second paragraphs in that you explain that the title is shared across promotions including Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre. Would it be possible to rephrase the lines in the second paragraph simply to state that Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre was the main promotion using the title during the first few years, although not exclusively. I don't think you need to reiterate the shared nature so quickly after doing it the first time.
- Image licences appear to be good. There's one which is own use rather than grabbed from Flickr, but it's such a close crop that I'm inclined to believe it.
- No issues with the table, all appears to be good. Miyagawa (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Godot13
- Initial comments (more to follow)
- Table sort functionality looks good.
- When you refer to promotion, do you mean the match promoters/organizers?
- The company that the match promoters/organizers work for - like WWE is the promotion, short for Professional wrestling promotion. MPJ-US 04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- For the Days held column, would it make sense to put the actual range in the column (along with the note), but keeping the sort parameter the same as it is now?
- I have never thought of doing that, the version used is the general format used for wrestling championships. I believe the choice was to use a note because the date ranges are so uncertain and not to lead credence to a specific number. This is the version used for all the 15 FLs I have produced and I'd hate to be inconsistent between them. MPJ-US 04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- In location, both Mexico and Mexico City are used. Do you have the city or state location for those listed only as Mexico?--Godot13 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the entries that just list "Mexico" do not have a mores specific location listed in the sources, primarily due to limited documentation of title change itself - often newspapers would report "Luchador I defeated Luchador II on January 1, 1901" when the champion would come to town to defend the title. MPJ-US 04:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Godot13: - I hope I have answered your concerns. MPJ-US 04:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am out of town until Saturday evening. I will go over it again by Sunday. Sorry for the delay...--Godot13 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Given the content of the other reviews, and your responses to my comments immediately above, I can Support this for FL.--Godot13 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support I'd only complain about an unreferenced sentence in the lead, but fixed that myself with something from later in the article. igordebraga ≠ 04:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Source review: no issues as far as I could see, so:
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Roald Dahl bibliography
Roald Dahl was a superb writer and story teller. Depending on your taste and age, he was either the man who gave your childhood reading matter a dark and macabre twist, or he was the man who gave some adult short stories a dark and macabre twist, which translated well into television viewing too. This new bibliography of his work has been split off from the main article, and has been much expanded, updated and provided with citations—which were sadly lacking in the original. Any and all comments are most welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Dahl is of course one of my favorite writers, looking through this reminded me of my childhood favorites that I read numerous times. This looks great, though I'd love to see Roald Dahl short stories bibliography merged into this article. It's not that long and would fit into the main list well to be comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment Reywas92. I think the reason the short stories bibliography is so short is that it's not complete, as far as I can see. I think there would be a lot of work to do to ensure it is a full and accurate record, and to bring it up to scratch. I have plans to do that in the future, but I think it may possibly be better as a separate list. - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well short stories are still part of his bibliography, so the main list is simply not complete without them; you can't just leave those on another page and only include the full books. The sublist does say it's comprehensive with two books cited but that would have to checked. Also, it mentions two compilations the main list misses: The Great Automatic Grammatizator and Skin and Other Stories, plus the navbox has Roald Dahl: Collected Stories, The Roald Dahl Omnibus, and The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl. These and whatever they include all need to be added. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not necessarily, as the bibliography is complete with the full books, and the short stories can just as easily be separate (there are other FLs that follow this pattern). I've looked at the sources again on this, and none try to include full lists of short stories (two have a "selected stories" section, but they consist of only a handful of books): te remainder list only the books. As to the other books you have listed, they are re-hashes of material already published in book form, but collected in a different order. As they contain previously published material, and as they were collected and published post-mortem, they do not need to be included (they represent ways forthe publishers and estate to try and extract more money from "new editions"). Again this is a fairly common practice and there are several other FLs that follow this pattern. – SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well short stories are still part of his bibliography, so the main list is simply not complete without them; you can't just leave those on another page and only include the full books. The sublist does say it's comprehensive with two books cited but that would have to checked. Also, it mentions two compilations the main list misses: The Great Automatic Grammatizator and Skin and Other Stories, plus the navbox has Roald Dahl: Collected Stories, The Roald Dahl Omnibus, and The Collected Short Stories of Roald Dahl. These and whatever they include all need to be added. Reywas92Talk 01:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Though the biographical detail is probably slightly more than I would have expected, this looks a sound list well worthy of promotion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS |
---|
Glad someone decided to work on this; Dahl is one of my favorite childhood authors. Not missing the opportunity to review! Anyway, here's my comments:
Needs a bit of work but there are no major concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Cheers SNUGGUMS, much appreciated. I've followed all your advice bar one and a half bits. I could be persuaded on those too, but hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from with the explanation. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC) |
I can now gladly support. Happy to help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments by FrB.TG
- This infobox violates two style guidelines:
- "Do not include links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function" (Purpose of an infobox).
- "infoboxes should not be arbitrarily decorative" (Style, color and formatting) – the colors serve no purpose.
-
- The guidelines on the three comments above are not binding on any article, and this IB format is used in several lists, including a number of FLs. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider adding alt text for the image and make sure it offers something different than the caption otherwise what's the pointFile:Roald Dahl (1982).jpg - ditto.
-
I'll consider it, although alt text is advised, rather than required – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"The death of an elder sister and his father within" – a verb is missing between father and within.
-
No, it's entirely correct as it is - there is nothing missing – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Consider linking World War II in the second paragraph.
-
I considered it, and decided against it per WP:OVERLINKING – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
"As at 2015" – as of is more preferable.
-
Not in BrEng, where "As at" is correct. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Suggest not using {{Sort}} for years in the tables as they serve no purpose in this case. -- Frankie talk 15:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
I could taken them out, but that serves no purpose either, I think. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your comments. I'll consider the alt text point, and probably add some description shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks FrB.TG: I've now added alts to the images. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments. Clearly to be supported – an excellent piece of work, but I have few small queries first:
There is a comma splice in the first sentence of the second para of the preamble; a semicolon would put it right."The following year he edited a book on ghost stories" - did you mean "on" rather than "of" here?In the short story collections table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is wrong, as the column includes three New York firms.In the non-fiction table, the heading "First edition publisher (All London)" is also wrong: the column includes Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.Is the publisher variously called "M Joseph" and "Joseph" in fact Michael Joseph? They printed the full name in the volumes on my shelves."Puffin Books, London" in the third table is just "Puffin Books" in the the sixthSimilarly, "Jonathan Cape" sometimes has "London" after it and sometimes doesn't.On a point of purely personal preference, I wouldn't give each section both a header and an immediately-following title for the table: e.g. "Novels" followed by "Dahl's novels", but I don't strongly object, and if that's the usual form then I'm happy to leave it at that. Tim riley talk 08:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks Tim: I've addressed all your points bar the last. I'm not too keen on the duplication either, but it's the way we're supposed to do things (or so I'm told!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
List of songs in Guitar Hero Live
I am nominating this for featured list as to match ongoing work to get the Guitar Hero Good Topic back in line with this new release (which I thought we had not have to worry about again after 2013... :) The format follows previous GH song lists, but addresses the complication of the GHTV not-DLC model this game uses. The game and GHTV aspects have been out long enough to know how to approach the lists correctly. MASEM (t) 01:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Review by PresN
Recusing myself as a delegate to review this list.
- Not totally convinced that we need these lists, but 11 FLs later the point is a bit moot
- "the first game in the series to support the 8th generation video game consoles, the PlayStation 4, Wii U, and XBox One" - should be a colon, not a comma
- "The game was released worldwide on 20 October 2015." - you use month-day-year in the tables
- "Guitar Hero Live will not use traditional downloadable content to expand the game" - "does" not use
- "playing songs currently presented on the channel in curated fashion" - in "a" curated fashion
- "overlaid atop live-action footage" - redundant; "shown atop" or "overlaid on"
- "watching the reaction to the crowd and their bandmates" - "the reaction of"
- "...used in previous Guitar Hero games, Guitar Hero Live adds songs to the game via Guitar Hero TV" - game name needs italicization, and earlier you only italicized the Guitar Hero and not TV; be consistent
- "The week after their introduction, these songs are then added to the on-demand playlist, and then after another week, enter into the GHTV's rotation of songs." -> "The week after their introduction, these songs are added to the on-demand playlist, and after another week enter into the GHTV's rotation of songs."
- "The on-disc soundtrack for Guitar Hero Live considered weak." - fragment
- "Griffin McElroy of Polygon found most of the songs were from 2000 or later" - found? That implies a bit more investigation than was really required; maybe "noted"
- "The GHTV mode has mixed opinions" - Don't think the mode is the one with the opinions
- "The GHTV mode has mixed opinions, with most reviewers praising the concept, with the presentation of the channels were highlighted as hearkening to the heyday of MTV, and giving the player the ability to explore new music, but critical of the use of microtransactions and premium shows, disallowing players to play specific tracks at any time they wanted without cost." - two phrases in a row starting with "with", and 6 clauses in total, not all grammatically aligned. Maybe "The GHTV mode has resulted in mixed opinions, with most reviewers praising the concept. The presentation of the channels was highlighted as hearkening to the heyday of MTV, and they were praised for giving the player the ability to explore new music. Some reviewers, however, were critical of the use of microtransactions and premium shows for disallowing players to play specific tracks at any time they wanted without cost."
- Redirects that don't seem intentional: 8th Generation, XBox One, and First-person perspective in the lead; Bangarang, Kellin Quinn in the first table; Chop Suey!, Higher Ground, and I Have a Problem in the second table; Stache, Atreyu, Alice In Chains, Undone - The Sweater Song, The Cowboy's Christmas Ball, Dragonforce, and The Day I Tried To Live in the third table; Games Radar in reception; Gamespot in references.
- Rowscopes are missing on tables, and colscopes fro tables 2 and 3
- Table 3: Nasty" is missing the opening quote, The Bots is sorting under The, N/A is sorting under 'N', The Champions is sorting under The
- Shouldn't this be in the "Guitar Hero soundtracks" cat like the other song lists, not the parent "Guitar Hero" one?
- Did not review references, as that's now a separate review type
- That's it! If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Convention Award FLC down below. --PresN 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Masem: reminding you of this. --PresN 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PresN: Many of the above were taken care of by @Harryhenry1: in this diff but I've gone through clean up the rest (dates are all now dmy, fixing the table sorting, etc.) The only question I have is about the rowscope, if this is needed here. As each row its its own entry, and the rows don't have header cells to them, it's not like the example given in the MOS, so I don't think it's needed here. (Colscopes have been added though). --MASEM (t) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, now that I look at the tables again, the reason it doesn't seem like the rows have headers is because the "header" cell is actually the second one- the song title. The year shouldn't be first; the original year the recording is from certainly isn't the most important item about the track release. It should really be after the artist column.
- That said, I don't know what MOS example you're looking at, but my understanding is that rowscopes are needed even on basic tables- @RexxS: as an ACCESS member, what is your opinion? Are rowscopes appropriate on the tables in this list? --PresN 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did relook and I think I misread something, so I would agree that rowscope is probably needed and that means that the song name should be first (the most unique ID on the list). I just want to make sure before flipping the column orders around. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)
- I think that adding rowscopes and marking cells as headers for the song titles would improve this list. That would allow a screen reader to navigate down the column "Band", for example, and hear: "45, Band, Broken Tide"; "The Anthem, Band, Yearbook Ghosts"; etc. At present, they are likely to hear: "2012, Band, Broken Tide"; "2002, Band, Yearbook Ghosts", etc. which seems less informative to me as 2012 is by no means unique to identify the song described on that row. If you changed:
- | 2012 || "[[45 (The Gaslight Anthem song)|45]]" || {{sort|Gaslight Anthem|[[The Gaslight Anthem]]}} || Alternative || Sounddial: Castle Stage || Broken Tide
- to:
- | 2012
- ! scope="row" | "[[45 (The Gaslight Anthem song)|45]]"
- | {{sort|Gaslight Anthem|[[The Gaslight Anthem]]}} || Alternative || Sounddial: Castle Stage || Broken Tide
- (which would be needed to mark up the row headers, while leaving the rows in the same order - I'd prefer song title first, of course), that would result in the song titles becoming boldface and the background darkening slightly as we do for headers by default.
- I can't comment on whether that change in display would concern the principal editors, but I do think the improved accessibility is worthwhile. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead, moved the Year columns to after Song and Artist, and then subsequently added rowscopes for the song name. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's certainly an improvement and would work for screen readers, so that's much better. The only quibble is that Wikipedia is supposed to produce HTML5. Unfortunately in HTML5, the data cell (td) (| in wiki-markup) doesn't possess the rowscope attribute, so we no longer have valid HTML5. As I indicated earlier, the correct markup would use an exclamation mark:
! scope="row" | ...
which produces a header cell (th), but I guess you don't like the bold effect it produces. Anyway, it will be years before the invalid HTML catches up with us, so I won't quarrel over it. --RexxS (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)- I could use the "!" markup and then add style to "revert" the box to bg-less and boldless - would that be a problem MOS wise? --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem at all with the MOS or for accessibility - just the sheer effort of making the changes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I will be regexing this sometime today, tomorrow or the day after, once I figure out the right CSS to do so. I've got a script that enables regexing in the normal WP editor that I used today to do the rowscopes. --MASEM (t) 01:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- No problem at all with the MOS or for accessibility - just the sheer effort of making the changes. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- I could use the "!" markup and then add style to "revert" the box to bg-less and boldless - would that be a problem MOS wise? --MASEM (t) 23:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's certainly an improvement and would work for screen readers, so that's much better. The only quibble is that Wikipedia is supposed to produce HTML5. Unfortunately in HTML5, the data cell (td) (| in wiki-markup) doesn't possess the rowscope attribute, so we no longer have valid HTML5. As I indicated earlier, the correct markup would use an exclamation mark:
- I've gone ahead, moved the Year columns to after Song and Artist, and then subsequently added rowscopes for the song name. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @PresN: Many of the above were taken care of by @Harryhenry1: in this diff but I've gone through clean up the rest (dates are all now dmy, fixing the table sorting, etc.) The only question I have is about the rowscope, if this is needed here. As each row its its own entry, and the rows don't have header cells to them, it's not like the example given in the MOS, so I don't think it's needed here. (Colscopes have been added though). --MASEM (t) 20:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Masem: reminding you of this. --PresN 15:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Consistent with the rest of the series. (must confess that I helped fix some of the requests above, and even added an image to fit the 5b criteria). igordebraga ≠ 04:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Sam Waterston on screen and stage
I am nominating this for featured list because this is my first featured list candidate about an actor and I would like to see it added amongst other filmographies featured lists. Arbero (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Review by Cowlibob
Firstly great effort in populating this list, must have taken ages.
- "Waterston has appeared in numerous films, television projects as well as on stage during his career – one of his early" I think you should split these into two sentences before and after the hyphen.
Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- ", which gave him a 1974 Emmy Award nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series." how about "for which he received a Primetime Emmy nomination for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series".
Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- " for which he garnered two Golden Globe nominations the year after – Best Supporting Actor and New Star of the Year." how about "which earned him Golden Globe nominations for Best Supporting Actor, and New Star of the Year.
Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- The stage section seems out of a place how about move it down to their own last paragraph.
Done I have moved and rewritten it. What do you think? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "saw him win another Golden Globe nomination" I think receive would be a better word.
Suggestion Are there any other words (synonyms) we can substitute for receive? Not trying to be rude, but I don't want to use it multiple times because it will become very annoying and I prefer to use different words. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- " – the performance meant Waterston received his first Academy Award" odd phrasing here. How about " for his performance Waterston received his first Academy Award..."
Done Sure. As for the sentence, I was just trying to use another sentence to make it more unique and different. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Other notable credits from the 1980s.." what makes these notable?
Remark: Those characters he played were notable figures in real life. I have removed Hopscotch and Warning Sign though. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- " for which he gained" I think "won the" would be better phrasing.
Done Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Waterston more notability as a professional actor" how did the role make him notable?
Remark: I don't know to be honest, so I have decided to remove the sentence and also some unrelated references. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- What makes Hollywood.com and tribute.ca reliable sources?
Remark: If I'm not mistaken, Hollywood.com is a news website like other film websites (Flixster and Yahoo! Movies) and most news there are reliable. As for Tribute, it's a showbiz magazine similar to Empire and Entertainment Weekly and even has its' own Wikipedia article, so shouldn't magazines be counted automatically as reliable sources? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "Some of Waterston's most notable 1990s films" what makes these films notable in his career?
Remark: – You probably have a point here. I can't really explain how these films are notable, so I have removed the whole sentence. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "currently appears" can't use words like currently in an encyclopaedia.
Suggestion – How about "As of 2015?" Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- "husband, father and divorce lawyer of two children" Very unclear what this sentence means.
Remark: It means that the role character he plays is a divorce lawyer, married husband and father who has two adopted children. I have shortened the sentence to "divorce lawyer" now. Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- In the table, titles which begin with A or The should be sorted by the second word. Roles should also be sorted by last names as should director's names.
Question: Not sure what you are trying to justify here? Could you be more specific by using another actors' filmography list as an example? Arbero (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That's it for a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've made some lead changes. There's still more I could do. For the sorting in tables, please see the following FLs: Julianne Moore filmography, John Gielgud, roles and awards, Robert Downey Jr. filmography etc. Sorry for the delay, I'm in quite a busy time at work. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Padma Vibhushan award recipients
I am nominating this for featured list because last nomination was archived, mainly because of the delays in resolving comments due to my wiki-inactivity. This time I hope to get it to its desired status. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
---|
Comments by FrB.TG:
Otherwise pretty good work. Sorry I didn't leave comments in its previous nomination as I was a little bit late. Anyway, hope these help. -- Frankie talk 20:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC) |
- Support. Per my resolved comments at its previous nom. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support the nomination. -- Frankie talk 19:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support. My two cents were incorporated in the earlier nom. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ref 13 needs spaces after each comma. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Done. Please let me know if you have more comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Source review by MPJ
So I will be looking specifically at the sources to help ensure it's meeting the FL criteria.
- The "External Links" tool shows that everything is live and well so that's good.
- I am seeing official sources, news sources ,books etc. nothing that is not a Reliable source
- Formatting is okay, dates consistent etc.
- Generally the recipients are sourced, all spot checks confirm this.
- The only statements made in the article I do not see are the "Posthumous honors" part prior to 2015 - the sources confirm they were awarded the Padma, but not posthumous? No sources on their death listed.
- The date of death sources seems to be the only issue I can find, otherwise it all looks good to me. MPJ-US 13:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
In ProgressDone @MPJ-DK: Please check now. - Vivvt (Talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds
- Nominator(s): Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have undertaken a great deal of work to improve this list, and make it a more comprehensive description of the cricket grounds used by Sussex. I believe it meets all the FL criteria, and is of a similar than FLs about other counties' grounds (List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Essex County Cricket Club grounds, List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club grounds, List of Somerset County Cricket Club grounds, and List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The other lists you mention include First Class, List A and T20 matches, but there are no T20 matches on this list. Is there a reason for this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Only 2 grounds have hosted T20 matches (County Ground and Arundel). Also, some of the tables in the similar articles look messier because they're too long if you add T20 matches.
- But I can definitely add them if people want. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ChrisTheDude: Added them. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- In the lead you say "Sussex's main ground was Royal Brunswick Ground" but then later refer to it as the Royal Brunswick Ground. Better to be consistent
- "This venue has also has held a single" - think there's a stray extra word in there
- "14 List A matches at Central Recreation Ground, Hastings" - think the word "the" is needed before Central
- "After the ground was demolished in 1996–97,[9] Two List A Sussex matches" - no need for capital on The
- "Eastbourne did not host any Sussex matches in 2001 [...] and have not played another first-class or List A dixture in Eastbourne since" - the subject of the sentence is Eastbourne, so you need to change "have not played", presumably to "Sussex have not played". Also, fixture is spelt wrongly.
- "Between 1908 and 2015, Cricket Field Road Ground" - again, needs "the" before the name of the ground
- Note g: "Excludes two matches where no play was possible, 39 matches played the South team" => played by the South team
- Note j: "Excludes 16 matches where no play was possible" - write sixteen as a word to match the other notes
- Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @ChrisTheDude: I've made all the changes suggested above. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support - looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) |
---|
Comments/Fixes
|
- Support - looks much better now. Given that the lead underwent a significant transformation, I'd like to know if ChrisTheDude is okay with the current version. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
List of accolades received by Selma (film)
Selma is a 2014 historical drama directed by Ava DuVernay. It received many awards and nominations for its direction, David Oyelowo's portrayal of Martin Luther King Jr. and the song "Glory" by John Legend and Common. As always looks forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Vivvt
- There's one dead link.
- Need to mention if its a Hollywood/French/Russian movie. Not clear by name. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Vivvt: Sorted the above points. Please continue the review. Cowlibob (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Mention "As of XXXX" for Rotten Tomatoes as number may change in the future.
- @Vivvt: Done. Cowlibob (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support All my comments have been resolved. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Well-written, well-organized, comprehensive, and solidly referenced. I can find no issues with it. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek/archive1. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 12:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Krimuk90
- Oprah Winfrey is wikilinked twice.
- Since it's mentioned that Common won a Supporting Actor award for the film, it will be wise to mention him in the cast listing in the first paragraph.
Just these two minor issues. Good work! Happy to support. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
World Fantasy Convention Award
Hey all, almost done with this latest article group: at #10 out of 10 in the World Fantasy Awards, and #36 overall in my perpetual sci-fi/fantasy awards list FLC series, we have here the World Fantasy Convention Award. Why is there a special convention award, separate from the general "did neat stuff in the past year" professional/non-professional awards, or the life achievement award? Unclear, since the WFAs seem to be allergic to writing down their own rules; which is perhaps why it has only been given out 11 times, the last in 1997. It's still an official category, though, and long enough to be the final WFA list to come to FLC. As always, the formatting is identical to other WFA/sci-fi awards lists, and I've brought forward comments from prior FLCs in the series. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
So since you broke the ice with your review of the Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship I am returning the favor with your nomination.
- Is there no images at all? Not even an award winner?
-
- Not at present; I'm still working on getting a free-use photo of the trophy to put in these lists.
- "More regular special awards are given out for professional or non-professional work in the prior year in" - I assume that since you worded it like this that the Convention Award does not follow that pattern? It is an assumption though, not actually stated in the article.
-
- Reworded to "Other, annually-given special awards"; it's meant to contrast with the "in some years" from the prior sentence.
- "Less than half of the winners are primarily known for their writing, as opposed to editing work or artwork." Since we have a definitive number perhaps it would better to say that X out of the 11 winners are primarily known for their writing, while the remaining are known for editing or artwork" or words to that effect.
-
- Changed to be explicitly "five". I was trying to fudge because Wollheim did write things, eve if he's much better known for founding DAW and being an editor, but I agree it's awkwardly worded.
- "In some cases the winner is well-known for their non-fantasy works," - Looking at Stephen King being on the list perhaps "best known" is a better term than "well-known"?
-
- Eh, because the WFAs consider horror as a subgenre of fantasy he wouldn't be better known for non-fantasy, just also known; and besides, Norton wrote sci-fi and Brennan wrote poetry, but both were better known for fantasy.
- While all awards in the list are sourced, the "work(s)" column seems to be totally unsourced and the award source does not list it.
-
- Yes; this is based on the precedent from World Fantasy Award for Life Achievement (and several other similar FLs). The works are explicitly not meant to be a "reason" for the award, and are composed only of works that are plainly and uncontestably written/done by the person in question before the award was given, and are only there to provide some context and are not primary parts of the list or the award.
- Sources. During a previous fantasy ward FLC I commented on it was established that the Science Fiction Awards Darabase is considered a reliable souce. Looking at the rest they look reliable too. Dates are consistent etc So sources check out.
A good list with just a couple of adjustments. MPJ-US 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- Just a couple of comments from me - is there any information on why the award was given so intermittently?
- Does the column need to be "Winner(s)" since there is only a single winner each year? I guess Arkham House might warrant the plural but even then its a single entity. Miyagawa (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Miyagawa:
- None in the slightest. The WFAs are annoying at the best of times about actually publishing information about the awards, but there's nothing about this one anywhere- not why the conventions themselves decided to give out an award that entirely duplicates the existing ones, not why the WFAs have it as an official category instead of ignoring it, and not why it's still listed as an official category, nearly 20 years after the last time it was given.
- It's there because 1982 had 2 winners. --PresN 02:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Comments –
One too many given in "Other, annually-given special awards are given out...".Another couple of givens in the next sentence as well. More variety would be nice if possible.Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Giants2008: Cleaned out some givens; sorry for taking so long. --PresN 20:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support – Aside from those little complaints, the rest of the list looked fine to me. It's another great sci-fi award entry. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Source review
- Spot-check: ref 9–19; all of the sources cite the winners.
- Formatting: for consistency, add the publishers for The Guardian et al. Though the date format is somewhat outdated and not something I prefer, previous lists by World Fantasy Awards with this format have been promoted and so is fine. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- @FrB.TG: it's been brought up at previous FLCs, but with the review asking for the removal of the publishers - The Guardian's publisher is Guardian Media Group, The Star's is Star Media Group, Chicago Tribune is Tribune Publishing, and Locus publishes itself, so the "publishers" are excluded for being roughly the same as the "works". --PresN 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of Arsenal F.C. players (1–24 appearances)
- Nominator(s): Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal. Having checked the names, nationalities, and numbers, I feel this meets the criteria, hence the nom (hopefully someone here will cross check for any clangers). Again, I've modelled this on lists which have been promoted, and used the same database source for players as the main list. Welcome any sort of feedback, cheers...Lemonade51 (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- A couple of quick comments, will return later.....
- The article says "Since Arsenal's first competitive match, more than 500 players have made a competitive first-team appearance for the club", but above you say "Over 500 players have made fewer than 25 appearances for Arsenal". So which is it?
- The latter, corrected now. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- "have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Have done. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- "have failed to reach a quarter of appearances for the club" - very bizarre turn of phrase, nobody would ever refer to 25 games as "a quarter of appearances". Just say "25 appearances" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- In "They became the first southern member admitted into the Football League in 1893", why do the words "southern member" link to Southern Football League, a competition Arsenal have never played in or been associated with ? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Removed it; wanted to link Arsenal's southern ties to the 'Football in the south of England' section, but that might just be confusing altogether. Lemonade51 (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Is there are a particular reason for the omission of the goals column? This is standard in all lists of this type. Seems strange to me. NapHit (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Silly me, have added them now! Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- "The list is ordered first by number of appearances in total, then if necessary by date of debut." It appears to be ordered by date of debut first to me
- Shouldn't all defenders prior to 1960, have FB as their position instead of DF? Seeing as that is what the position key states.
-
- Changed. Done the same for midfielders.
- "and defunct competitions the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup..." this doesn't seem right to me. Need a better way of introducing the defunct competitions
-
- I removed the defunct bit as it reads better just listing the competitions.
- I think the position key should be sorted by position. So GK, FB, HB etc, would be more beneficial to the reader in my opinion
-
- Done, feel free to change the table if something's wrong.
- link for 1893–94 season in note 1?
NapHit (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @NapHit:, cheers for your comments as ever, think I've addressed all your points now. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments from Mattythewhite
I feel the entire list probably needs running through, to ensure accuracy and verifiability, before I can confidently support this nomination. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
|
- Support Thank for persisting, I feel this now now meets the criteria. One minor comment though: are wingers not generally regarded as midfielders rather than forwards? Mattythewhite (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! For reasons of consistency I've decided to class wingers as forwards, given their role in the team pre 1960s was forward-like; I feel it would be wrong to class them as half-backs. Plus there are players like (Alex Iwobi), who have been positioned as a wide forward, and not like a wide midfielder. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Source review - passed
-
- Spotchecks: Checked sources 2, 7, 12, 16 - all clear
- Formatting: formatting is fine, though I personally would use links for publishers. Consider archiving your refs, just so you don't have to deal with it if any of the websites ever change the way they structure their pages. --PresN 21:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support – I decided to take off my director hat to review this one and didn't find any real points of concern. Looks like a very nice list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Jessica Chastain on screen and stage
After a long hiatus from Wikipedia, I am back with my 19th FLC nomination on the lovely Jessica Chastain. Hope to receive constructive criticism, as before. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - based on comprehensiveness and coverage. I don't find it very detailed, and that's partly because each table is quite short because of her comparatively few film appearances compared to others. I don't think it represents the best of Wikipedia, and it's quite premature in my opinion. I would rather see a longer list. I don't see why it's not just called "Jessica Chastain filmography" either. The wording of the current title sounds more like it should be a prose article, not a list, and that's actually what I was expecting to see when I clicked on the Wikilink. I find the lead a bit choppy too. it's just short, successive sentences that aren't that interesting to read, and it's more like a chronological re-telling of what we can gather ourselves from the list. I'd rather see more about the characters she has played and critical responses, awards and nominations, not just what year she was in each film. — Calvin999 12:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: "_______ on stage and screen" is frequently used for actors and actresses with theater credits. A common alternative is "_______ performances". Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I know, but for me it sounds more like it should be a prose article. Using 'filmography', we know it's a table or list. — Calvin999 09:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Calvin999, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with Dr. Blofeld) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria. — Calvin999 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Streep's one to me has more of an engaging and interesting flair to it. I enjoyed reading it and I found it informative. I didn't get the same feeling when I read Chastain's; it read more like a burst of short sentences. It's meant to be Chastain on stage and screen, but only one sentence out of three paragraphs actually mentioned stage work. I think also her comparatively shorter career doesn't help as there is less to draw upon and write about. But therein lies another issue for me which is bigger: I think this article could be easily merged into her bio. Lots of actors have select filmographies, and I think that the same could be applied to Chastain's. For me, that is a big problem, because I don't think it warrants its own standalone list at this point in her career because it's quite short. It's nothing to be taken personally, no nomination of any kind gets no criticism or feedback. It's not a critique on you, remember that. — Calvin999 16:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Look, I'd be willing to make amendments/improvements to the article - that's the entire purpose of the FLC process. But you've got to be more specific about what needs changing; something like "not engaging or interesting" doesn't exactly help this nomination. Could I request the coordinators or some other editors to weigh in on this matter, please? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- They are my reasons. I don't think the lead is broad enough in its coverage or that it is detailed enough. It's not engaging or interesting. You could also illustrate the article with some images, surely (and I don't mean by adding multiple pictures of Chastain; the second one is completely pointless). With regard to Streep's, Wikipedia:Other stuff exists comes t mind; no two lists are the same or can be the same, each one is different. Having said that, I actually found Streep's interesting to read. Unfortunately, I do find Chastain's a bit of a bland listing of "x" in "y". Another problem with the title is that it's not reflective of the content. Only one sentence in three paragraphs says about her stage work. I'm sorry that you're quite clearly rattled by my opposing, but I don't think this list represents the best of Wikipedia as a whole. I don't think this list meets 1, 2 ,3a or 5b of the criteria, either in part or fully in places. How's that? I'd actually say this list could be merged with her bio, which is a problem regarding criteria. — Calvin999 10:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Calvin999, your reasoning for the oppose are based on your personal opinion and not on an existing criteria. I urge you to read the FL criteria before such a drastic opposition to the nomination. I'm sorry but "it sounds more like it should be a prose article" is not a strong justification. Also, no filmography list provides a list of critic reviews - however, this list, wherever possible, and without being tedious to read, provides details of her major award wins and nominations, as well as the critical and commercial performance of her most notable films. It is in no way just a bland listing of her playing "x" in film "y". Please familiarise yourself with the standard followed by the film, TV and theater appereance listings of actors (such as Meryl Streep on screen and stage - a list that I wrote with Dr. Blofeld) that we follow out here, and I'd be happy to follow up on more legitimate concerns. Cheers! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment – The nominator has been indef. blocked. —Vensatry (Talk) 07:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NumerounovedantTalk 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments from Numerounovedant
|
@Krimuk90: Support All my comments were resolved, Good Luck with the nomination! NumerounovedantTalk 06:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Support I'm sure neither the nominator nor the delegates are going to worry much about what Calvin999 has to say. The list is clearly comprehensive and of FL standard and you wouldn't want to bloat it with excessive prose anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- the key about films that had yet to be released should go at the end of the table not proceeding it - is it possible to include as a separate row in the table rather than a completely separate line.
- the listing for Dark Shadows rather than an unaired pilot should read pilot episode with an annotation/footnote that the pilot episode wasn't aired but did have a limited release.
- The Huntsman: Winter's War has had its cinematic release
- Ref 52 needs fixing
- Stolen was originally known as Stolen Lives but was renamed before it received its theatrical release - notes should reflect this.
-
- Well, several films have different names during production, but the name with which it is theatrically released is the only notable one.
- Then maybe a footnote explaining that when it was first screened in 2009 it was called Stolen Lives but was renamed prior to its theatrically release - otherwise the notes column makes little sense.
- Well, several films have different names during production, but the name with which it is theatrically released is the only notable one.
- The Westerner she was a co-producer not the sole producer - notes should reflect this.
-
- Generally, films have more than one producer. Each one of them are still the "producer", so I think it's fine.
- It would be preferable then for a footnote to be included to this effect, as not all films have multiple producers.
- Generally, films have more than one producer. Each one of them are still the "producer", so I think it's fine.
- Texas Killing Fields was also known as The Dark Fields
-
- According to IMDB, it released as The Dark Fields only in Australia. It also had different release names for other international markets. Is this notable enough to be included?
- Maybe it is because I'm from Australia but you're right it doesn't need to be included.
- According to IMDB, it released as The Dark Fields only in Australia. It also had different release names for other international markets. Is this notable enough to be included?
- The Colour of Time was released in the UK as Love Forever. Was it released in the US under The Color of Time or Tar?
-
- It was given a theatrical release in the US as The Color of Time, but premiered in film festivals as Tar.
- Similarly to my preceding comments about Stolen, there should be a footnote provide greater explanation about the alternative names.
- It was given a theatrical release in the US as The Color of Time, but premiered in film festivals as Tar.
- The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby she was a co-producer not the producer, which implies she was the sole producer - notes should reflect this.
-
- As above.
- As per my comments on The Westerner.
- As above.
- Wilde Salomé, was also released as Salomé, in 2013, essentially without the documentary elements - notes should reflect this.
-
- Already mentioned this. Added the year of release in the footnote.
- Maybe reword the footnote as 'entitled Salomé, was separately released in 2013.'
- Already mentioned this. Added the year of release in the footnote.
- Did she appear in the 2011 short film, Touch of Evil?
-
- It wasn't really a short film, but a 40 second spoof for NYT. Is this notable?
- You're right it isn't notable and shouldn't be included.
- It wasn't really a short film, but a 40 second spoof for NYT. Is this notable?
- Did she appear in the episode, "Eros in the Upper Eighties", of Law and Order: Trial by Jury in 2006
-
- According to this, she wasn't a part of this episode. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- and yet there are these screenshots from that episode and IMDb which appear to indicate otherwise.
- According to this, she wasn't a part of this episode. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Possibly where I was confused was in the footnotes you state 'Refers to the film's earliest release' whereas when you state the name of the film you use the date of its theatrical release as the correct name for the film, which for some of these films are different.
Support All my comments have been addressed. Best of luck with the nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time out to review this. Much appreciated. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
List of tributaries of Mahanoy Creek
This is my fourth featured list nomination; it's yet another tributary list. This one is about the tributaries of Mahanoy Creek, a 51-mile-long tributary of the Susquehanna River in Schuylkill and Northumberland Counties, Pennsylvania. Mahanoy Creek is impacted by abandoned mine drainage in its upper reaches, as are some of its tributaries. This list hopefully covers all the significant aspects of the tributaries, and most of the streams have pictures (and, as usual, all have articles). --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 14:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Colonel Wilhelm Klink
The information in this article is accurate; I've checked it against your sources, which are all reliable enough to negate the need for further verification. To further determine whether this list meets featured list criteria, I compared it to the List of tributaries of Shamokin Creek, which is already FL, and with the official featured list criteria. In doing so, I've made the following observations:
- The prose of your article, though not extensive, is sufficient for a featured list in terms of grammar, terminology, and style.
- The article's lead has wide enough scope, although the information is a bit outdated (it's mostly from 2001). If this is because the conditions discussed have and will be stable for the long term, this is okay; nevertheless, I would suggest some updating, if not from recent (e.g. 2015) sources, than at least from newer (e.g. 2007) sources.
- This article is comprehensive enough for its topic. It contains all of the relevant information necessary for someone to gain a good understanding of the subject, does not extensively duplicate information from another article (as far as I know), and, overall, satisfies the standards set by other featured lists and set guidelines.
- This article has a logical and organized structure. All sorting mechanisms work properly.
- The style of this article meets the standards of WP:STYLE. However, there is a problem with the lack of images in this article (which is really the only major problem I've found). To compare to the other featured lists of tributaries, every item listed should be accompanied with an image. While some such featured lists don't include such extensive use of images, it certainly does help the quality of the article. If anything, consider adding images only for the two main tributaries of Mahanoy Creek (in the first table), since these seem of greater importance to the subject.
- This page is stable, and has never been subjected to edit warring.
In conclusion, this list sufficiently fulfills the criteria which a featured list is required to fulfill. As it is now, I would support its promotion to featured status; in the instance of the suggested improvements being made (along with any other that I missed), I would change this position to strongly support. Good work, good luck, and farewell. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 19:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. If data from more recent years actually existed, I'd use it, but it's this or Operation Scarlift data from the 1970s. Studies of minor creeks like this one aren't repeated on a regular basis, if at all. Also, more than half of the tributaries actually do have pictures already. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
This will be my third tributary list to review, and it looks to have maintained the same structure so should be an easy review:
Should have a source for " not affected by mining." I suspect the source at the end is the same, and this is fine, it's two different concepts.
-
Yes, the source at the end of the paragraph supports the whole paragraph.
"(0 cubic feet per second (0 m3/s))" can be replaced with 0 discharge (no need for conversion). Perhaps an explanation is in order for this strange number?
-
Fixed.
-
Better, but why is there a tributary without any water?
-
North Mahanoy Creek, the tributary in question, loses most of its water to underground mines, and is an ephemeral stream in its lower reaches; the article discusses that.
-
That makes sense... but that should be included in the prose and readers shouldn't have to open up the article to see why there is 0 runoff... I think just calling it an ephemeral stream is enough (Or is it an Intermittent stream)?
-
I really don't think it's that unusual for creeks to run dry; it happens all the time, especially to small ones like this. I suppose I could link to Stream#Intermittent and ephemeral streams.
pH is a huge range, any explanation for that in the source?
-
Well, some tributaries are affected by mining (hence the low pHs), and some aren't. It's still relatively unusual to have an alkaline stream (at least in northeast PA), probably due to acid deposition, but not unheard of.
-
Can this be added, with info from the source? Something like "most tributaries are acidic, ranging from x-x, due to ..."
-
Added a sentence to that effect.
-
I rewrote the last sentence, what do you think of the change?
-
Pretty good, though I tweaked it a bit.
Important: Need to briefly describe the Hilsenhoff Biotic Index, specifically is 10 good? or bad?
-
A lower score is better; I changed the text to reflect it.
-
I just checked the source and it appears higher the better. Specifically Hilsenhoff indicates that a score of 3-9 means "microinvertebrates present) and 10-24 indicate that microinvertibrates are common. I think those terms should be used with the score in brackets as the number itself is not very meaningful.
-
That's actually, a different scale; unlike the HBI, those numbers refer to the actual number of macroinvertebrate individuals there are. The chart on page 33 labels anything under 4 as "excellent" and anything over 7 as "very poor".
-
Can you use those terms? Excellent (4) and Very poor (7)? I think they are more useful than numbers without context.
-
Done.
You say Only Mahanoy Creek that was found to contain fish, but later say Schwaben Creek are stocked with trout... do you mean "naturally" contain fish?
-
Actually, the text says In 2001, Schwaben Creek was the only named tributary of Mahanoy Creek that was found to contain fish, so no contradiction.
Why is there no elevation for Shenandoah Creek or Kehly Run?
-
There's something strange going on with those two creeks in the USGS database. The National Map shows Kehly Run reaching its confluence with Shenandoah Creek near the Number Four Reservoir, but Kehly Run's official coordinates are a mile to the south (and on a nearby hill for some reason). I have no idea where Kehly is supposed to end and Shenandoah is supposed to start; thus I don't know the mouth elevation for Kehly or the source elevation for Shenandoah.
Can you include a Map all coordinates link as in the Bowman Tributaries? Otherwise the coordinates in the table are not overly useful.
-
Done.
Great list! I look forward to supporting it after these minor issues are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Mattximus: Thanks for another great review! I've responded to your comments. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- 11-entry list that I doubt passes wp:GNG. Keep up the low bar. Nergaal (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- wp:GNG depends almost exclusively on sources. This article has several good sources, so by wp:GNG definition it's notable. There is no featured list requirement that says it must be greater than 11 entries either. Mattximus (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nergaal, if you believe a nominated list does not meet the GNG, then please take it to AfD. Passive-aggressive comments on the nomination are not at all helpful to anyone- they have no effect but slightly annoying a few people, and if that was your aim then you need to have new aims. As far as the length- 11 is short, but the unofficial minimum is 10 items. --PresN 20:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would recommend a topic ban should this kind of behaviour continue. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – With all of my comments resolved, I'm comfortable in thinking that this meets the FL criteria, providing that the source-check doesn't reveal any unexpected issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Source review
As outlined on the FLC page there needs to be a specific source review done so here is my input on the sources
- Reference 1 - It does not actually give you any info? Considering it is supposed to source 10 statements in the article that's a big problem. Not sure how this was supposed to actually source anything?
- Reference 2 - Missing info on the publisher (U.S. Department of the Interior) It contains five different page indicators, I would expect them to actually be five different references, tying the page to the facts each page specifically sites?
- Reference 3 - Missing info on the publisher, author etc. simply gives us title and date, but there is more information that can be gleaned from the source.
- Reference 4 - Same as #3, missing information. Too many separate page indicators, really should be page specific references to ensure we can match fact to page
- Reference 5 - a zip file? I am not even sure what that is supposed to be for?
- Sadly lacking in the sources, only five but all have some sort of issue. MPJ-US 00:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Nominations for removal
List of tallest buildings in Austin
- Notified: WikiProject Skyscrapers
There are some very big problems with many of the "tallest buildings lists" that are currently featured. I think List of tallest buildings in Austin specifically no longer meets featured list criteria. Specifically, two whole sections (under construction and approved) are completely unreferenced. There is an outdated tag from 3 years ago not addressed. There are many dead links, very messy citations, images have no alt-texts, and many of the buildings in the main list are unsourced. It has been neglected for years now and it shows. This would take a lot of work to bring it up to standards again sadly... Delist Mattximus (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delist. Currently, this list does not meet FL criteria. I recommend notifying WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Austin, and WikiProject Texas, too, to see if any editors are willing to bring this list up to standards. ---Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have notified all 3 projects, as well as the general skyscraper project. Mattximus (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Mark of the Year
- Notified: Flewis, Australian rules football
This doesn't seem to be at the right level any more. Its carried a tag on the top of the page since September last year, and there are questions over the non-free images used. - SchroCat (talk) 08:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Was it ever at the right level? It seems that it has always used non-neutral peacock terms such as "screamer", "specky", etc. StAnselm (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- They aren't peacock terms, they describe a specific type of mark. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is "screamer" different to "specky"? The wikilinks go to the same article. What does "threw a screamer" (Peter Knights, 1972) mean? What qualifies as a "huge screamer" (Jeremy Howe, 2012)? Is there a difference between a "very high leap" (Andrew Krakouer, 2011) and a "huge leap" (Liam Jurrah, 2010)? StAnselm (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Most of the above examples were added after promotion to FL status, but it should never have been promoted with language such as "towering chest mark" (Tarrant, 2003) or "magnificent leap" (Ablett, 1994). Also, it was promoted with numerous citations to droppunt.com, which doesn't strike me as a reliable source. Perhaps User:Scorpion0422 can better explain the reasons for promotion.) StAnselm (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- They aren't peacock terms, they describe a specific type of mark. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 02:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Delegate note: while there hasn't been a lot of discussion on this list, the list does have some pretty glaring issues- the 5-tag box at the top, the short, choppy 1-sentence paragraphs, and the many informal, exuberant ways of saying "jumped really high" and "threw really far". I'm going to be closing this as delist in the next few days unless there's some movement on fixing the issues. --PresN 00:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)