Wikipedia:Featured list candidates: Difference between revisions
m →Nominations: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1 |
→Nominations: i have better things to do |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Please check that the list meets the NEW FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
Please check that the list meets the NEW FEATURED LIST CRITERIA before nominating it.--> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (World War I)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Jewish Nobel laureates/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball wins champions/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball wins champions/archive1}} |
||
Line 16: | Line 15: | ||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2010 Winter Olympics medal table/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of United States Military Academy alumni (Union Army)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Vladimir Horowitz discography/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Vladimir Horowitz discography/archive2}} |
Revision as of 18:29, 28 March 2010
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. 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 delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened 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 Purge the cache to refresh this page – 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 almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
Source reviews needed
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:09, 20 April 2010 [1].
List of San Diego Padres first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the return of the draft pick lists!!! :) Built in the model of the many others, now includes sortability from the start. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment: "Jay Franklin" redirects to John Franklin Carter, who I don't think is the right guy. Mm40 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why the distinction for the one center fielder? Why not group him into the rest of the outfielders?
5 third basemen - should be five third basemen.in the states of California while Georgia follows with six players - I don't like the word while here. Seems like an incorrect usage of the word although maybe I'm wrong and somebody who knows grammar/syntax better than I can correct me. Maybe replace it with a semicolon or full sentence stop.No Padres first-round picks - Again, doesn't sound right to me. Maybe None of the Padres first-round picks. Same thing with the sentence after this one. Also, despite starting the two sentences with the same wording, one uses has and the other have.- 12 All-Star teams, won 7 Gold Gloves and 6 Silver Sluggers - The numbers here should probably be spelled out like you did earlier in the lead.
Overall, a good article with just a few issues that I could find.—NMajdan•talk 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, except the last one per WP:NUM (12 > 10). Staxringold talkcontribs 22:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't enough of an issue to prevent my support, but I want to push back so I get this right in my future articles. I'm not familiar with your link, however I am familiar with WP:MOSNUM and while it does say consistency is the most important thing, it does say you can spell out numbers that are one word (like eighteen or twelve). While you're consistent with this instance it is inconsistent when the other set of numbers earlier in the lead is considered. But maybe that is going beyond the scope of the guideline. Also, still curious why the center fielder is listed separately from the other outfielders.—NMajdan•talk 13:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for numbers, I've always understood the style to be that numbers > 10 should be done with numbers and not spelled out and then all numbers in a sentence should be of the same format. As for the CF it's because the B-Ref page notes his specific outfield position (they almost always just say OF), and I didn't think we should throw that information away. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my comments admirably dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 April 2010 [2].
List of Jewish Nobel laureates
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of Jewish Nobel laureates. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria that provides interesting little known facts of some of the laureates. Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restarted, old version.
- Note I have restarted this nomination, as the FLC was growing long with comments, and the status of and consensus on various issues was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure about this. It seems like a contrived conjunction of two disparate concepts and I'm not sure of the true significance of it. The list is interesting but, like other contributors to this FLC, I'm unsure as to the significance of this "criterion". I'm not being flippant but a "List of Jewish FIFA World Cup Final scorers" would be an analogy which would be laughed out of court (if you get my drift). What makes this (uncertain inclusion criteria) list useful? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Director's note: this comment has been inserted from previous version since it was made just a few hours before the restart. Dabomb87 (talk)[reply]
- Comment above issue has been addressed at the AFD. The fact that ~ 20% of nobel laureates are Jews seems strongly linked to the discussion of racial intelligence, The Bell Curve and so forth. By analogy, if 20% of the FIFA World Cup Final top 100 scorers were from La Masia, that would probably merit some discussion. Sandman888 (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not really. The issue was discussed at the AFD and it was pretty clear that many people have different definitions of what constitutes being "Jewish". Even the nominator, in that AFD, said "For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind". Also, I'm very uncomfortable with the heavy dependency on a single source declaring all these laureates to be Jewish. As stated in the AFD, it would be far superior to find independent sources in which the laureates self-identify as Jews. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I think you've expressed three concerns in your two comments, namely that: (a) the list doesn't seem useful, or its topic is not significant; (b) the inclusion criteria are uncertain or subject to dispute; and (c) the list relies excessively on a single source. Sandman888 addressed (a), and you responded by reiterating (b) and introducing (c). I'm not convinced that relitigating (a) here would be productive; the AfD covered the ground fairly thoroughly, and was closed as "keep". I have more sympathy with you on both (b) and (c), but requiring public self-identification would probably not be uncontroversial either. Beside a strong matrilineal tradition, there have been fairly compelling reasons not to publicly self-identify as being Jewish at various times and places during the last century, and external sources have not restricted themselves to laureates who have publicly self-identified as Jewish. I think Mbz1 addressed (c) in the previous comments, saying that another source had also been used. However this has not been made explicit in the list, so some improvement would be worthwhile there. --Avenue (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not really. The issue was discussed at the AFD and it was pretty clear that many people have different definitions of what constitutes being "Jewish". Even the nominator, in that AFD, said "For all Jews being Jew is a state of mind". Also, I'm very uncomfortable with the heavy dependency on a single source declaring all these laureates to be Jewish. As stated in the AFD, it would be far superior to find independent sources in which the laureates self-identify as Jews. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Personally I don't see the point of lists like this which combine unrelated things. However I acknowledge that some people might be interested in this particular list. bamse (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI think this list is completely fine as the Nobel Prize is the one of most prestigious award in the world. And categorizing the awardees based on race can be quite useful. Besides, we have a similar list List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients already promoted, so I don't see why this one shouldn't be an FL.—Chris!c/t 21:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I just looked at this list again and I have to withdraw my support regrettably. There are several issues. Several refs are located below the tables, which should be in the ref section instead. Publishers in many references are not consistent. The lead is a bit disorganized.—Chris!c/t 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralThere are still nearly three dozen laureates who lack a source regarding their Jewishness (a WP:BLP violation in the case of living laureates), and I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation of why The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia, an illustrated book intended for children, edited by Mordecai Schreiber and published by Schreiber Publishing, is a WP:RS. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia" is used only as secondary source. Jewishness of all and each and every individual, who are included in the list confirmed by at lest one reliable source, but "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia". --Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia (reference 23) is cited nearly 130 times—in nearly every instance, it's the only source that attests to a laureate's Jewish heritage. So (a) what makes The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia a WP:RS and (b) where are the sources for the other three dozen laureates' Jewish heritage? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As was said many times before the main source for making the list was this site. It is referenced in the beginning of the list, where the number of Laureates is discussed. This site provides at least one reliable source for each Laureate to confirm his/her Jewishness. There was simply no use to add the same reference to every name on the list. That's why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia is just a secondary source. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAccording to Mbz1's comment, the reference for the Jewish ethnicity of the laureates is hidden in the lede (footnote 3), and footnote 23, the children's encyclopedia that is cited 130 times, is merely a "backup" source. In my opinion this doesn't satisfy the citation requirement of a featured list. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually nothing is hidden. I simply said that I see no reason to mention the same reference for every entry. Let's for example take this featured list. There's no reference for every name is added. The same is the situation with most other featured lists.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were a list of "Buddhist winners of the Golden Melody Awards", it should have references that verify that each member of the list is a Buddhist, and this list should have references that verify that each laureate is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does have a reference for every entry. The references is added to the beginning of the list versus to the every entry. If you believe it should be added to every entry, I will. It is just a matter of formatting the list, and there's no reason for "opposing" because of that. Besides I see nothing wrong with children encyclopedia either. Of course it is a reliable source on its own, or at least as reliable as other published encyclopedias.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were a list of "Buddhist winners of the Golden Melody Awards", it should have references that verify that each member of the list is a Buddhist, and this list should have references that verify that each laureate is Jewish. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually nothing is hidden. I simply said that I see no reason to mention the same reference for every entry. Let's for example take this featured list. There's no reference for every name is added. The same is the situation with most other featured lists.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As was said many times before the main source for making the list was this site. It is referenced in the beginning of the list, where the number of Laureates is discussed. This site provides at least one reliable source for each Laureate to confirm his/her Jewishness. There was simply no use to add the same reference to every name on the list. That's why the Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia is just a secondary source. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia (reference 23) is cited nearly 130 times—in nearly every instance, it's the only source that attests to a laureate's Jewish heritage. So (a) what makes The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia a WP:RS and (b) where are the sources for the other three dozen laureates' Jewish heritage? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia" is used only as secondary source. Jewishness of all and each and every individual, who are included in the list confirmed by at lest one reliable source, but "The Shengold Jewish Encyclopedia". --Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and added the relevant citation to each entry. The list now has very detailed citations compared to similar featured lists like the List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients, List of Asian American Medal of Honor recipients, and List of African-American Medal of Honor recipients. In particular, every entry now has an inline citation for the award's rationale and for the recipient being Jewish. --Avenue (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Use a proper template for sources. Include publisher, accessdate and so on for all sources (accessdate only for online sources). Sandman888 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - the headings are now all broken, column widths differ from section to section, refs ideally in numerical order please, no spaced hyphens (make them en-dashes per WP:DASH), lead has far too many small paragraphs, and the quotes break it up further, to its detriment. No lead image? Don't mix date formats in the references... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've went ahead and fixed the headings, thought it was a browser thing. If it's not, I can't understand why you didn't change it back when you saw them mixed up.
- The lead, I think, should reflect why the list is important, i.e. discuss Jews and their over representation amongst laureates and who else has done so, not just say this Jew had a rought time, and btw. the nobel prize is this and that. This is my main opposition. I think the lead should be completely re-written.
- If you make a distinction between Economics and the rest, note that the Peace prize is also qualitatively different as it is awarded by the Norwegian parliament, not the Swedish academy. This shd be noted if you continue the focus on what a nobel prize is.
- Thank you for your comment, and for fixing the mess I have done. I did not notice that. Would you care to re-write the lead and share it with us at the article talk page maybe? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I will not. Sandman888 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment, and for fixing the mess I have done. I did not notice that. Would you care to re-write the lead and share it with us at the article talk page maybe? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The subject is very notable, and the source of Mbz1 does seem reliable enough and cites more sources. Broccoli (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose due to several outstanding issues, and because it appears that some editors are voting support out of some form of principle rather than by actually reviewing the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This subject is of immense interest to many as similar lists can be found at Jewish Virtual Library,Israel Science and Technology Homepage,Jewish Biography site- About.com also has a list: [3]. If you Google it there are many many hits. Now I realize that sometimes some people use such a list to gloat over the fact that other ethnicities maybe don't have so many prizewinners, or use it against Jews to claim that the Jews control the Nobel Prize along with the rest of the world's institutions (I've seen both) but neither of those things is not what this is about. WP is not about what is done with the information we present, it is about the information. The intriguing point, as Mbz1 has pointed out and as the About.com link points out "Of the 750 Nobel Prizes awarded worldwide between 1901 and 2007, at least 162 were awarded to Jews. While Jews are approximately 0.25% of the world's population, Jews make up approximately 22% of all Nobel Prize laureates worldwide. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellarkid (talk • contribs) 04:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
- Um, Stellarkid, you do realize that we're discussing whether the list "exemplifies our very best work", not whether the subject is notable? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyone in the list is Jewish, there is no original researche regarding Jewishness here. This kind of lists is many time the hardest to verified according to WP criterions, however this list do it well. The subject itself is very very interesting for many people and it's a very frequently watched list. So, it deserve to be featured. And as for WP:WIAFL- I came over the article, the list do seem to meet it fully.Conditional Support: The article is good and important but need further work to become completly tidy-as the The Rambling Man mentioned--Gilisa (talk) 06:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- No, it doesn't meet our standards. There are problems with many of the reference formats, there are references just floating in mid-air, the column widths vary from section to section making it look very untidy, refs are out of order. These are all very basic issues. People who are already supporting this list in its current state should refamiliarise themselves with our criteria and current standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose pending resolution of the technical points re refs etc. Please nudge me when these are resolved and I will take another look. --Dweller (talk) 19:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the status on the various concerns listed by reviewers above? This list has not been edited in a week. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my oppose. Concerns have not been adressed. Sandman888 (talk) 08:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [4].
List of Major League Baseball wins champions
The onslaught from WP:MLB continues (slowly). This is the second installment of the pitching half of the forthcoming featured topic candidate on the Triple Crown. Everything to be addressed as speedily as possible. I am, humbly and as always, grateful to all who take time to review an article that I have worked on. Cheers to you all. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
Replies to Truco: This isn't an award, in that a trophy is presented or anything like that, but it is generally recognized as a competition and "champion" is generally the term used for the leader at the end of the season. Alt text is no longer a requirement, but I'll get to it eventually. I'm not sure which "in" you're referring to, but both of the ones in the sentence you reference are grammatically correct. ERA acronym is done. As to the margin of victory, the basic meaning is that the leader had X wins, and the second-place finisher(s) had Y wins. The margin of victory is X minus Y. I don't know if we have an article on margin of victory or not to link to. Yes, there's a heavy reliance on Baseball-Reference, and there might be other sources out there, but it's the most reliable that I have found for absolutely any baseball information that's out there, and it's the best source we have available to us by a long shot. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Well we have one (Margin of victory), but its more about American football. All issues, resolved.--Truco 503 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be better to arrange pitchers by date first instead of by league? It would make the list one single table. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 19:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so, for several reasons: we're not trying to make a single table, as the championship is awarded separately in each league (the "other leagues" were combined simply to make it more succinct); and to maintain consistent formatting across the articles in this series. In some years, winning the championship in one league is much different from the other based on the dynamics of the offense and the pitching in each league in any given season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, makes sense, looking at it and other lists. My only other comment would be that the list of inline citations is very long: about 25% the length of the article/page in my browser. Is there a way to reduce that length through an autohide feature, or by using the citation for the next page level up, say this instead? —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support my comments addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
American League table: 1942 runner-up Thornton Lee is listed as having 222 wins. How his team didn't beat out the Yankees for the pennant, I will never know. :-)
Five of the images—McGinnity, Peavy, Webb, Lee and Sabathia—are cutting off the right edge of the table.
- I don't see this happening in either IE or Firefox on a small resolution at work, and I built the table on my laptop at home without any issues like this either. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, it occurs on a widescreen monitor with IE, but my resolution is at a lower level than default settings (makes the writing larger). If resolution is put at its default setting, the images fit fine. I'm marking this as resolved, and perhaps this explains why I'm often the only one who sees formatting oddities. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Charles Radbourne and Eddie Cicotte images are both lacking some type of source that would prove public domain status. (The Radbourne image page says it's from the Hall of Fame, but I'm not sure their photos are really PD anyway)Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support – Meets FL standards. Note that for a few of the images, I added/improved their source links, because I know how much of a hassle such issues can be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, sorry for not weighing in earlier. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:21, 6 May 2010 [5].
List of National Parks of the United States
Here's a list of America's 58 National Parks complete with dates, areas, and descriptions. Some of the description lengths are different, so tell me if you want more for certain ones. There are some statistics and history in the lead, but I am happy to research something else. Completely my own work, it's based on my previous FL List of National Monuments of the United States, though my record is a little better, having been to 8 of them. (Wikicup) Reywas92Talk 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- No alt text. I believe this is no longer an FL requirement, but I just wanted to point it out just in case.
- I believe that is correct.
- Several more instances of measurements needing the parenthetical conversion (beyond the ones above) per WP:UNITS.
- The reference for American Samoa doesn't make any mention of it being the southernmost national park.
- The reference for Biscayne doesn't mention any of the threatened animals.
- The reference for Bryce Canyon doesn't back up the settlement sentence nor does it mention hoodoos.
- Going through the references for the first several entries showed a lot of inconsistencies between the descriptions and what is actually verified by the source. I suggest you go back through and verify all of what you say in the descriptions is correctly sourced. I will continue my review after this is done.
This has the potential to be a good list and a meaningful one for the project. However, I am going to have to withhold my support for now until the sourcing issues are resolved.—NMajdan•talk 14:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All references are to the main NPS page for the park. Information is sourced either from that homepage or in its subpages (History & Culture and Science & Nature). All of your examples are also in those subpages but the identical link is not repeated. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the same thing in my previous FL. I just don't think it makes any sense to have one link for some parks to the main park page but many repetitive links for others even though it's all to the same small set of subpages. In this case the source link to the park home represents the History and Science subpages as well. Reywas92Talk 19:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm.... I really don't know what the policy is in that situation. I would assume every statement needs an accurate citation so all of those sub-pages would need to be cited. However, I'd like to get input from other reviewers before asking you to do that.—NMajdan•talk 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still have a bit of a problem with the references, but since I can't find this method to be in violation of any MoS guideline, I have no other reason not to support.—NMajdan•talk 13:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why is 'National Park' capitalized? 'National park' is a common noun, although each individual national park is undoubtedly a proper noun.
- Changed
- The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing based solely on this minor point seems a bit harsh. That's just my opinion, of course. Anyway, I think it is very difficult to decide in this case. The park system is called United States National Park, so based on that, the current name seems fine to me. But Arsenikk did have a point, too. So, I don't really know what to do in this case.—Chris!c/t 01:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not really know who is right here, but I want to note that all other lists of national parks in US are capitalized. On the other hand, in the category's title "national parks" are not capitalized. Probably there is some reason why they named such. Renaming this list would mean making titles of the lists inconsistent. This issue should be discussed separately from this review, because it is beyond its scope. Either all lists should be renamed or none. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The U.S. Department of the Interior, on its website, capitalizes terms like "National Park Service" and names like "Yellowstone National Park", but when referring to the parks as a whole or a group, the term "national park" is not capitalized. See here for an example. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not follow your reasoning here. As I see it now, I feel the article should not be promoted, but you insist on your view. Perhaps other reviewers have an opinion on the matter? If not, I will tend towards an oppose. Arsenikk (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherstuffexists is for deletion arguments, not consistency comparisons. In the US, all 392 areas of the National Park System are considered national parks, as they are federally-owned parks run by the National Park Service. While that would be just a common noun, each of these 58 is a United States National Park, capitalized to indicate that these are the official National Parks, not just national parks. For this reason I think parts of the lead should be re-capitalized. Reywas92Talk 22:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are confusing me. You agree that 'national park' is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized in the prose, but insist that it should be in the title. As you pointed out, it is inconsistent with the FL List of national parks of Sweden. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What do you mean by "it's proper like United States National Park"? Is that an institution? Of course every individual national park is a proper noun, and the United States National Park Service (an organization) is a proper noun, but when referred to as a collective group, 'national park' becomes a common noun. Arsenikk (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because that link refers to national parks in general, not the just the 58 National Parks. The new quarters program has National Parks, National Historical Parks, and other designations, including some that are not even NPS. I have seen both usages elsewhere, but in my opinion, with the ambiguity of park terminology this should be capitalized to distinguish this type. Anyway, I can't move the page because there's a redirect in the way, so if everyone else wants it lowercase someone else will have to move the article. Reywas92Talk 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case it's proper like United States National Park. It's consistent with FL List of National Parks of Canada.Reywas92Talk 13:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The title of the list still uses caps. Arsenikk (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed
- Early in the lead, there is a section of a few sentences where the term 'National Park' is repeated almost endlessly: "...National Parks. All National Parks are operated by the National Park Service, an agency of the Department of the Interior. National Parks must be established by an act of the United States Congress. The first National Park...".
- I'm not really sure what to say; I think "national" must be there to distinguish from any generic park.
- The sentence "Alaska and California, each with eight, have the largest number of National Parks, followed by Utah with five and Colorado with four." provides first a number and then explains the number. This forces the reader to guess the end of the fragment.
- Changed
- Once one reaches the millions, is it not common to use square miles instead of acres?
- My source had it in acres though I can convert it if you really want.
- Why is the metric area provided at a different significance than the imperial?
- The acreage is exactly what my source says. I do not think the km2 needs to be drawn to four decimal places.
- I would have said all the claims in the descriptions need to be referenced, although I think a bulk referencing (all at the end) for each entry would suffice. (per NMajden above)
- Some animals are listed in singular, others in plural.
- I have made them more consistent; some sets refer to the animals in general and others to the species
- 'Tributaries' is an uncommon enough word that it should be wikilink.
- Changes
- 'Chihuahuan Desert' and 'Rattlesnake Springs' should be wikilinked.
- Relinked former, latter does not have article
- 'Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park' should probably have an endash, since it is a disjunction between two parks.
- Changed
- In Grand Canyon, be consequent in using digits or words within a sentence.
- Changed, though "a mile" is only an approximation and isn't quite "1 mile".
- Values in Great Sand Dunes description need to be converted
- Changed
- "The only area accessible by road is Exit Glacier, while the rest is viewed by boat tours." sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "while" is the wrong word?
- Changed
- In the Mammoth Cave description, there is a missing { or }.
- Changed
Arsenikk (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose for the following reasons:
A few national monuments are no longer designated as such, having been redesignated or disbanded. I find this sentence strange. Why does it talk about monuments? The article is about parks, not monuments. Can it be a typo (monuments -> parks)?- Fixed.
In a desert climate millions of years of erosion have led to these structures, while the ground has life-sustaining soil crust and potholes. Sorry, I do not understand the last clause in this sentence. Please, clarify.It has the world's richest fossil beds from the Oligocene epoch and wildlife including bison, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, and swift foxes why some animals are plural and some single? The sentence should also be split in two.- They are all plural. The plural of bison is bison. Fixed
Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park has part of the Chihuahuan Desert, ancient fossils, and cultural artifacts of Native Americans. I suggest a split: "Named for the Bend of the Rio Grande along the US–Mexico border, this park includes a part of the Chihuahuan Desert. A wide variety of Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils as well as cultural artifacts of Native Americans exist within its borders."- Changed.
The park is divided into four districts by the rivers. I suggest: ", which divide the park into four districts."- Changed.
monocline protruding from the earth that shows its geologic layers. It is not clear what shows geological layers: monocline or Earth?- Changed.
This northernmost park protects part of the Brooks Range and has no park development. What does this mean "no development"?Ecosystems vary on the north and south rims and elevation within the Sonoran Desert. Quite a meaningless sentence, in my opinion.It has some of the country's darkest skies What does it mean Darkest skies"? The skies are everywhere about the same (not counting other planets, of course) Probably, it should be cleanest skies?- Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
- It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that is not a run-on. The park has dark skies and the park has animals. They are in one sentence to avoid having two short and choppy sentences. Changed though.
- It has some of the country's darkest night skies and animal species including Townsend's big-eared bat, Pronghorn, and Bonneville cutthroat trout. Skies and animals are not logically connected to each other. If I am not mistaken this called a run on sentence. (should be split in two sentences) Ruslik_Zero 18:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified; No, it means there is less light pollutions which is not based on cleanliness.
They were formed by sand deposits of the Rio Grande on the San Luis Valley, and the park also has alpine lakes, six 13,000-foot mountains, and ancient forests. This sentence should be split in two sentences.- Changed.
Hosmer's Grove of alien trees, and native Hawaiian Geese. You should decide what form you use: plural or singular.This is the least-visited National Park (Kobuk Valley). How about Gates of the Arctic?- What do you mean? Kobuk Valley is the least visited.
Formed by glaciers, there are tall bluffs, rock gardens, islands and bays, and historic buildings. Were historic buildings also formed by glaciers?- Changed
My general impression is that the text requires polishing at places. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I just took a quick look at the lead paragraphs and my first impression was that it was really choppy. The first few sentences in particular are really short and could be reasonably combined. Additionally, the descriptions for each National Park has no standard. Gates of the Arctic, for example, talks about human development while Glacier Bay describes its wildlife and landscape. I think that each park should have a paragraph that incorporates all of three things: wildlife, landscape, and a short history (such as the Sand Dunes). --haha169 (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I wrote the descriptions incorporating the most important aspects of the parks. Every park is different and must not have the same repetitive elements. It is notable that Gates has an untouched environment, and it is notable that Glacier Bay has these wildlife and glaciers. Many parks do not have noteworthy wildlife but are known for their geologic features and landscapes, or vice-versa. I combined a couple sentences in the lead. Reywas92Talk 20:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think this is ready to be promoted. The prose and the table look great. Everything is referenced.—Chris!c/t 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to make a map of country labeling all the parks? I thought I saw one somewhere. Or can you make one of those maps using Google Earth? Sorry if you have no idea what I talking about- There is a link at the bottom of the page that will make a map on Google Maps or Bing.
I don't like "and the first national park" in the first paragraph. I would expect "and" after a comma to expand on the idea previously stated, not give a separate idea- Changed.
"in 1890. In 1916" the repetition of "in <year>" sounds odd. Perhaps you can make the second part read "The 1916 Organic Act" or "The Organic Act, passed in 1916, ..."- Changed.
The sentence beginning "National parks usually have a variety of" doesn't make any sense to me: the natural resources protect the resources? Huh? Also, "large areas of land or water" should just be "large areas"- Changed. That's what my source has.
Ref 2 has a different date style: "Month date, year" versus "Date month year"- Changed.
6/27/2005 in ref 5 should be written normally
More to come later. Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm busier that I thought. I'll probably post comments on the talk page if this is promoted before I get a chance to review it properly. Mm40 (talk) 11:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of number-one albums of 2009 (México)/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [6].
List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons
Nominating for several reasons: 50 goals is one of the NHL's most celebrated achievements, I'm looking to set a standard for related lists and for the WikiCup. The list has been stable, it is now well referenced, complete and has plenty of images. Resolute 01:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - boldface shouldn't be used as an indicator —Chris!c/t 01:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suppose current players can be indicated with a highlight and a '*', as discussed at WikiProject hockey. Also, the "Games played" and "goals" key could probably be done in {{abbr}} to make them tooltip, like I've seen used in other hockey articles. eg. GP Schmloof (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't this be at List of 50-goal seasons in the National Hockey League or List of 50-goal NHL seasons or something like that? This isn't a list of players (right off the bat Hull appears several times), this is a list of seasons. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Semantics, imo. It is still a list of players, but some players have multiple entries. Resolute 16:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it semantics? List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage is a players list, it's about the players. This is a seasons list, the player is just a descriptor for that season. This is List of Major League Baseball home run champions. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
Comments –
"50-goal seasons were relatively common...". Don't believe sentences should start with numbers like this.Don't need two 50 goals in 50 games links in the main section.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack! Someone snuck that second link in right under my nose... Both should be fixed, give or take a dash, since I have no clue if it should be there or not when joining two words. Resolute 02:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps the number of times a player reached the milestone should be given it's own column, then one would be able to quickly find out which players scored 50 in a certain amount of seasons. Also, would it be possible to add some kind of indicator of which players led the league in goals scored to the table? Yes, one can figure that out already, but some kind of indicator would help. If not, I think the Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy should be mentioned somewhere in the history section. Otherwise, great work. -- Scorpion0422 21:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought about highlighting league leaders, but decided that that effectively duplicates content at the Richard Trophy article. I wonder if other reviewers have an opinion on that? Certainly open to adding it. Putting number of times reached could be moved to a separate column, but would having a sort that basically goes Bossy (9), Gretzky (9), Bossy (8), Gretzky (8), Bossy (7), Gretzky (7), etc add any benefit? I'll have to contemplate how to discuss the Richard trophy... but will be when I have more time. For now, I've just thrown it into a see-also section, since it does have considerable relevance to the topic. Resolute 21:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support my comments dealt with. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:31, 3 April 2010 [8].
List of international cricket centuries by Viv Richards
I am nominating this for featured list because we just don't have enough cricket featured lists! Seriously though, another one of these lists of cricket centuries, modelled off those that have gone before. Harrias (talk) 09:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just one quick thing (I know nothing about cricket), but should "North Marine Road Ground" (in the ODI centuries table) be "North Marine Road" to match the linked article? I don't care either way, just checking if you do.Mm40 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Seeing that there is no images in the ODI section, why cant we have the number of balls faced ... I know I'm being annoying but it would be handy, probably more so than Strike rate. —Aaroncrick (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Aaroncrick (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [10].
2010 Winter Olympics medal table
It's been three weeks since the Olympics ended, so I think this page is sufficiently stable. It's modeled after the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table and 2006 Winter Olympics medal table, both FLs. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] One more:
Jujutacular T · C 03:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Looks good. Thanks for your hard work. Jujutacular T · C 19:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Shouldn't ranks which tie be e.g. 17= etc rather than just two 17s? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's pretty commonplace. It simply means "17th equal". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never heard of this convention before, is it common? Another possibility: 17 (tie) Jujutacular T · C 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (from the editor who worked the 1998 table to FL status) – Didn't find much to comment on, and what I did find was either minor or subjective.
The first sentence strikes me as akin to the "This is a list of" beginnings that we've been discouraging lately. Not sure if anyone else feels the same, or if I just think this because I started the 1998 list differently and have a bias toward it."A total of 2,632 athletes from 82 nations participated in 86 events from fifteen different sport disciplines." All the other numbers above 10 are given as numerals in the lead, so I imagine that "fifteen" should be as well.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Both done. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. -- Scorpion0422 20:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think that a medal map should be added to the list. It provides a better visual impact as we can see in 2007 Pan American Games medal table, the latest Featured medal table. Felipe Menegaz 16:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Sourced and well presented. However, I would have to agree with Felipe Menegaz, a map of the countries that earned a medal would be a better visual representation to compliment the table. Sb617 (Talk) 01:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:27, 17 April 2010 [11].
List of Nebraska Cornhuskers head football coaches
Big 12 Coach list #7. Hopefully all necessary changes have been made.—NMajdan•talk 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Nothing too serious wrong with this article, in fact while there are a couple of phrases I wouldn't have used myself, I can't find any problems with the prose at all. I'm sure some more nit-picky reviewers will give you some stuff on that though! I do have a couple of small issues:
- While I normally view on a big widescreen monitor on which I'm sure this would render fine, on the 1024 x 768 that I am using at the moment, the table requires a horizontal scrollbar. I can't find anything regarding what resolution we should be tagetting, but I'd suggest a fair few people will still access at this? Don't know if you can practicably make it smaller, and it's certainly not going to make me withhold my support, but it may be worth looking at.
- There's not a whole lot I can do to make the table smaller. Before this comment, I removed the PT (Postseason Ties) column since Nebraska has never tied a postseason game, so all entries in this column when dashes or zero. The only other thing I can think of besides reducing the font size is to ditch the years in the NC column, although I believe that information is useful.—NMajdan•talk
- As I said, its not a huge issue I don't think. Normally I wouldn't have spotted it at all, just happen to be on an old laptop at the moment.
- There's not a whole lot I can do to make the table smaller. Before this comment, I removed the PT (Postseason Ties) column since Nebraska has never tied a postseason game, so all entries in this column when dashes or zero. The only other thing I can think of besides reducing the font size is to ditch the years in the NC column, although I believe that information is useful.—NMajdan•talk
- In the NCs column, should "3— 1994,..." take an endash rather than an emdash? Also, emdashes should not be spaced if you do keep it. Of course, it could be that it really is an endash, and my tiny monitor is making it look bigger!
That's all from me, another nice list. Harrias (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "that represents University of Nebraska–Lincoln in the North Division of the Big 12 Conference in the National Collegiate Athletic Association." Should be another "the" before University. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.—NMajdan•talk
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [12].
List of Sri Lankan Test cricket records
This article is based on the List of Test cricket records article. It was at WP:PR for some time (I closed the peer review today, after fixing the issues raised there). Since this is somewhat different from most of the existing cricket lists, your suggestions and comments would be very valuable on making this a featured list. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe the Fastest Test centuries/half-centuries/double centuris sections may be completely unverifiable. You are providing the strike rate for the runs scored not the half-century/century. For example Jayasuriya may have hit his first hundred runs with a strike rate of 300.00 (i.e. faster) but then taken a very long time to get the other 57 runs (e.g. strike rate 20.00) which would overall drags his strike rate for 157 runs. However, he still scored the faster century (first 100 runs). This example is clearly fictional but is useful to indicate the problem within a context. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Would you suggest removing those three tables (fastest scores are not that important in Test cricket anyway) then? There is a separate page at Cricinfo (http://stats.cricinfo.com/ci/content/records/210170.html) for fastest Test centuries, but it's not possible to find something like that for each team, so I have used the search engine here. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [13]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree. I do think a fastest 100 would be a useful record to add if it could be found but I understand the complexities involved and have struck my oppose. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed those three sections. Keeping them like "fastest 50+ individual scores" is pointless IMO; what matters are the actual records regarding the centuries themselves. Otherwise the article would become just a collection of statistics, I think. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes ditch those sections (especially half/double centuries). Ideally it would be nice to have fastest century recoreds by balls faced/minute for Sri Lanka in that style (here's a couple more i.e. the 2006 top 10) but I realise it might be difficult to find and my quick google came up with nothing (It seems feasible for ODIs however). If you wanted a fastest section I suppose you could do highest strike rate with a qualifier e.g. 50 runs [13]. Up to you but, in my opinion, the current sections must go as they are misleading. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- I must admit that I am against these sorts of lists on Wikipedia. Lists of Test centuries, five-wickets hauls etc are pretty stable, they are unlikely to change that much too quickly. Whereas almost every list on this page could change two or three times in a month or so. It is unlikely to I'll grant you, but it could; at which stage it becomes very hard to keep it up to date, and is possibly breaking WP:FL? criteria 6 for stability. Besides that, I feel it is a bombardment of information without much analysis and explanation at times, and it better left on Cricinfo and to a lesser extent, CricketArchive. I'm not going to oppose the list, because I feel you've done a good job on it, but I'm afraid in this case I can't support it either, unless you can convince me that it is worthy of inclusion in it's current form. Possibly, maybe, a split version would be more suitable, batting records one one page, bowling on another etc. I'm not sure. Harrias (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider the stability issue before starting work on this article, and it seemed pretty ok to me. Looking at their recent matches, Sri Lanka plays an average of less than 10 Tests per year. Most of their Test tournaments are 2 or 3 match tournaments, and they have never played more than a 5-match tournament to the best of my knowledge. It's almost always one tournament per season, which means about three tournaments per year. Also, the only records that will need to be updated regularly are the career runs and wickets, batting and bowling averages, and dismissals. The other records are not very likely to change in every match, so updating the article after every tournament should be an easy enough job. As I said, this is based on the List of Test cricket records, which went through a FLRC last year, so I didn't really think length would be an issue. If more reviewers agree that the article's stability and size may be problems though, I will withdraw the nom since they are major concerns that I can't really do much about. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists I can be stable yet dynamic. For example Premier League Player of the Month changes, well, monthly. However, like TRM made me do for that list, will you promise to keep an eye on new Sri Lanken records in the future and update this accordingly. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Narrowest win margin by wickets: Winning by 5 wickets I think is a considerable win. Overall test record table in Cricinfo limit it to victory by 3 wkts or less. Consider trimming.
- True enough that it is not a very narrow margin, but when it comes to Sri Lankan records these are the narrowest margins they have. I think we should stick to the top five records because of this, and also to keep it consistent with the rest of the article.
- Best career average bowling: Qualification needed. Best--Chanaka L (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – With TRM's comments resolved, this looks to meet FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Very detailed and time consuming list. Well done. —Aaroncrick (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:11, 22 April 2010 [14].
Vladimir Horowitz discography
- Nominator(s): Etincelles (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC) and Pianoplonkers (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because in the last nomination all problems were fixed and since I have added many more references. Etincelles (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Jujutacular T · C 17:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As far as I can tell, all issues with the previous nomination have been resolved. I couldn't find anything else to take issue with. Good work. Jujutacular T · C 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Comment this is an excellent piece of work and has improved immeasurably since its first nomination. I was heavily involved in the first review, I have to say that this is a massive improvement over that list, and will take some time to check it over, but right now it's an example of how to take constructive criticism and develop a great list out of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support worthy of FL status. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "Horowitz's final recording, with Sony Classical was completed four days before his death". Feels like it could use another comma after Sony Classical.
- "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles)
- "His discography contains numerous albums and also compliations of compositions by a variety of composers." No need for "also" in this sentence; it's merely an extra word that doesn't add anything after "and".
- Second sentence of Overview is lacking a period at the end.
- No need for two Sony Classical links in Overview. One will do fine, and interested readers will have already clicked on that. The same applies for stereo links, of which there are currently two. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: "This final recording consisted of repertoire that he had never previously recorded". Should an "a" be before "repertoire"? (not sure if that's used in classical music circles). I've never seen it written as "a repertoire" in Classical music, just "repertoire".THD3 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All done, however I agree with User:THD3. Etincelles (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:22, 7 April 2010 [15].
List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for the United States
I'm nominating this list because it is comprehensive, fully sourced, and meets all the FLC criteria. Furthermore, it is based off the similar List of Olympic women's ice hockey players for Canada, which is a current FL. Anthony (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
That's all from me, looks a pretty good list on the whole. Harrias (talk) 09:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good, I'll have a fiddle at getting those medals to sort better for you too. Harrias (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
Overall a good list. Just a couple comments/issues.—NMajdan•talk 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Why are goaltenders and skaters separated? Why can't you just include a position column? It would be nice to be able to sort by years-of-participation or number of medals among all athletes, and not just those two groups.
- As you are primarily a football editor (according to your page), I will say that in hockey, goalies and skaters are always separated on account of the different stats required for each. Sortability would be a mess if you combined wins and goals-against average with assists and penalty minutes. Every hockey list separates the two; to ask otherwise would be insanity. Anthony (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan•talk 20:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say, I'm quite happy to see this list. Ever since I completed the lists for Canada, I've been hoping that other editors would start creating similar lists for other nations. Just a few quick comments, are two lead images really necessary? Perhaps you should use the best one (Image:USAWomen2010WinterOlympics.jpg). Also, would it be possible to add a minutes column for the goalies (I recently added one for the Canadian list). I think it's beneficial because GAA is calculated using minutes played and goals against, so it would be nice to have both pieces of the puzzle there. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
That's it for now. Might be back with more. Goodraise 00:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Neutral. Did not (yet) find the time to review this extensively enough to support. Goodraise 00:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Would be nice to see it mentioned in the lead the player who was inducted into the two halls of fame.The bold in the reference quotes strikes me as unneeded. Just having them there should be sufficient to point out the intended information.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I've seen it in a number of other articles, just to highlight the information, but I removed it anyway. Anthony (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:08, 7 April 2010 [16].
Melanie C discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is worthy of the status. Tsange ►talk 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
First-glance comments from Mm40 (talk)
|
- Please remove all the strikethroughs you've made through my comments; it's up to the reviewer to see if they have been resolved. Mm40 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...). Goodraise 01:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:35, 22 April 2010 [18].
List of Pop Idol contestant music releases
I am nominating this for featured list because it previously went through a failed FLC but met with positive feedback. The main reason for failure was that the nomination was still there after one month with not enough comments. 03md 10:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- The section Pop Idol albums is completely unreferenced.
- Added a couple of refs.
- "series of top five hits" should probably be top-five.
- Done
- there is inconsistent use of "number one" and "number-one" – I have no real preference of one over the other, but be consistent throughout.
- Changed all instances to "number-one".
- Similarly with "top-10", "top 20", "number three" etc.
- Done.
- "charted at number one in January 2003,[5]." Reference after the full-stop, and no comma.
- Done.
- "Jessica Garlick, the latter being selected as the United Kingdom's entry for the Eurovision Song Contest 2002 and finishing third in the competition." Could you provide a reference for the Song Contest position.
- Done.
- per WP:MOSNUM, numbers at the start of a sentence should be spelled out.
- Done.
Just a few, mostly MOS changes. Harrias (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- the only issue I see now (aside from the resolved comments from my last review) is that the term "number-one" is used interchangibly but incorrectly. "number-one" should be used as an adjective to describe the single/album, it should not be used in the sense of describing where it ranked on the charts. For example, some sentences are in similar fashion to "it ranked number-one in the UK" (sentences like this should not have a dash). Sentences like "his hit was a number-one." (that is okay to have a dash).Truco 503 01:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:14, 16 April 2010 [19].
List of accolades received by Precious
- Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the article meets the Featured List criteria. This is the first article/list that I've made that I've ever nominated for Feature List quality, so I'm not very familiar with every detail the list needs, so I'm very sure that this article might need minor edits. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 02:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The summary box at the top is impossible to read. Please reformat, perhaps using List of accolades received by Avatar as an example.Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
- Support. Great work! Jujutacular T · C 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't have any problem with this list. All right. TbhotchTalk C. 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Comments from DrNegative (talk · contribs)
- The nomination column in the info-box should contain the count of all nominations, including the nominations that eventually became wins. All award wins are still nominations as well. This also makes it easier for the reader by presenting the awards count of wins/noms as numerator/denominator.
- Done. Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal opinion here, I feel the dates look better on the left-hand column of the list, followed by the awards which are alphabetized, and then the award "category" column. More than likely, your average reader will constantly ignore the date column in between the two as it is now when comparing what accolades where won for the particular award ceremony and it may be more of an annoyance. DrNegative (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add my input, does it really matter if the date of the award ceremony is on the left or right side in the awards table; a Featured list is suppose to be about whether or not the article meets all of the FL requirements, not about "personal taste" on how the awards table should be formatted, just sayin'. Crystal Clear x3 17:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read Rambling Man's comments and I can see his point too. I guess it comes down to personal taste at this point and I am just trying to get our film-awards lists to a certain standard format so to speak. List of accolades received by Ratatouille, List of accolades received by WALL-E, and now List of accolades received by Avatar all follow the same format so I don't think we should deviate from it. However, I can't place my opinion above Rambling Man's because he makes a good point too. We need a compromise of some sort it seems. DrNegative (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordering the list like that has been disputed (see resolved comments by the Rambling Man) Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 17:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:39, 14 April 2010 [20].
List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)
After two recently featured shortish lists, this is another list of the series of lists of National Treasures of Japan. It uses the same structure as the already featured castle, shrine, residences, painting and sculpture lists. I tried to incorporate comments from previous FLCs. bamse (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Early commentsSupport
- Some of the refs need ordering (particularly placing #10 before others, but also I see #29 before #27 in the last paragraph).
- Extra space between #18 and #10 (which need reordering) after the sentence "natural environment in contrast to symmetrical layouts." Staxringold talkcontribs 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered all references. There should be a bot for that (or is there already?). Also fixed the extra space. bamse (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check the toolbox; there are a few dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that a few organizations decided to re-organize their websites with the start of the new fiscal year on April 1. Already fixed one link. It'll take some time to find the new location of the other pages since google is still pointing to the old locations. bamse (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The only thing I see which might be an issue on lower-resolution screens is the Statistics section with the tall left-aligned table next to the smaller right-aligned table and image. Should these maybe not be next to each, and instead placed above or below the left-aligned table? Other than that, I think everything looks very nice. I'm assuming the entries with a dash for the image are those for which we have no images? ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 10:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about
1110 (just added a picture of Kōjō-ji's pagoda) national treasure temple structures out of 152 without image which is quite remarkable. Except for the konjikidō where photography is not allowed, all structures can be photographed and will eventually have an image. bamse (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Support based on improvements made. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. I increased the size of the map a bit so that the space is filled better on my (small) screen. I now have a long and narrow table on the left, a small table on the top right and the map below it also right-aligned. It is virtually impossible to arrange the two tables and map in such a way that it looks good on all browsers and resolutions. I hope that it looks decent on most settings. Indeed, the entries with a dash don't have an image on wikipedia yet. There are only about
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments. I started to address some point but will need another day or so for the rest. bamse (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment Just one thing, what is the default sorting of the table? Jujutacular T · C 18:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Jujutacular T · C 20:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [21].
List of Philadelphia Flyers players
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all the FL criteria. It is based on existing ice hockey player lists, but I have added sortability to the tables. Unfortunately, due to the nature of this, the addition of SortKeys has made the article a lot larger and slightly slow to load, which is unfortunate. Harrias (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
Overall a good list, just missing a few things that are included in other lists. Fix these issues and I'll gladly support. Anthony (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support - all comments have been addressed, and list is up to FL standards. Anthony (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment – What makes the following sources reliable?
|
Support – Looks good to go. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NMajdan |
---|
|
- When you have a player with multiple season ranges, shouldn't the ranges be separated by a comma?
- Blank cells should use an em dash instead of a regular hyphen.
- I disagree, many tables use en dashes as I have done here, and there is nothing that I can see in WP:MOSDASH stating that either should be preferred.
- I'd prefer the numerical columns (Seasons through Playoffs SV%) to be center aligned, but that's just personal preference. I won't withhold supporting the list because of this.
- I'll leave it as it is for the moment, and see if anybody else comments on it. I'm willing to change it, but it'll be arduous, so I don't want to do it and then have three people say they prefer it as is!
—NMajdan•talk 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. My most pressing concerns have been addressed. There are still a few outstanding items, but nothing large enough to prevent my support. I've left those issues uncapped for other reviewers to comment on if needed.—NMajdan•talk 13:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [22].
List of Dragonair destinations
- Nominator(s): Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I am in the process of nominating for Cathay Pacific Group for Good Topic and need to bring its relevant lists to FL-status. The article has been overhauled into table format, completely researched and referenced. Aviator006 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
A couple of comments:
bamse (talk) 17:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] ...and some more:
and one more... Would it be feasible to add (as a footnote or so) the dates (years) when a non-continuous service was suspended/resumed? bamse (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: All comments (very patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Nice to see aviation lists at FLC. Arsenikk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Done well to (patiently) address the concerns raised by others. Sb617 (Talk) 00:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [23].
NWA World Middleweight Championship
I am nominating this list for Featured List because I feel it conforms to the FLC and generally has the review input from previous FLCs I've done worked into it. There are currently three redlinked articles: César Curiel, Gran Cochisse and La Fiera. Since the FLC process usually takes over 2 weeks I am confident that I will turn the links blue before the FLC process is over. The wrestlers who are not linked are wrestles where I have been unable to find much information on the except that they've won this particular championship so it's my judgement that they do not fullfill the Notability criteria and thus do not have to be linked.
As always I am open to any and all comments and will work to produce the best possible list. MPJ -DK 09:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Resolved comments from Harrias |
---|
* "CMLL retained three NWA labeled titles, the Middlweight championship, the NWA World Welterweight Championship and the NWA World Light Heavyweight Championship despite them no longer being officially recognized by the NWA and promotes both to this day." Both? As there are three of them, surely it should be 'all'? A slightly clunky sentence overall though, so might be better to completely reword.
To be honest, the points I've made above are the tip of the iceberg. I would recommend delisting the article from here, getting a peer review, and if possible, a copy edit done, and then bring it back. Harrias (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- It looks pretty close for me now. Well done on all your work to resolve our comments; it would have been easy to get disheartened! Harrias talk 10:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Too many prose glitches for me at the moment. A few of them are listed below, but I don't guarantee that I got them all. I agree with Harrias that a copy-editor is needed.
- "The championship was called the 'World Middleweight Championship', created by Salvador Lutteroth". Seems to be missing "and" after the comma.
- "The title was created at an unknown point before March 29, 1939 and awarded to Gus Kallio." The "awarded to Gus Kallio" part was already covered in a previous sentence.
- "and changed their name to Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre to in order...". The promotion has both repeated links and repeated initials, neither of which are needed. Also, there's that misplaced word at the end.
- Hyphen needed for "NWA labelled" and "NWA branded" at various times.
- Remove comma before "that were all originated in CMLL."
- "Dragon won the title from Corazon de Leon on November 8, 1994 after which he began promoting the belt in Japan;". Comma after the year. Also, the semi-colon here should just be a comma.
- Hyphen for "CMLL based" in "the first CMLL based title match since 1994."
- "In March, 2010...". Move comma to after year.
- "and the president of sent letters...". Something's missing here.
- "but was ignored by CMLL. CMLL...". Try to avoid the repetition of the promoter's name here.
- Comma after "Averno is the current champion".
- Change the semi-colon before "while the Great Sasuke's single reign..." to a comma.
- Gus Kallio note: "due to the fact that he already held the World Middleweight Champion in the United States". "Champion" → "Championship". Also, there should probably be a period after this.
- Anibal note: "Anibal defeated El Cobarde in decision match to win the title." Missing "a" before "decision match"; the other similar notes have one.
- Reigns by combined length: De-capitalize Of Reigns and Days in the headings.
- Shouldn't footnotes 3 through 7 begin with capital letters?
- Reference 3: The em dash for the page range should be a smaller en dash. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do the various fixes later, I'm just not sure if it'd be worth still having this be a FLC if there are so many problems with the prose that I just seem to miss. MPJ -DK 22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done all the fixes, I just want people's honest opinion - how much work does it need? If it needs quite a bit of work I'll withdraw it for copyediting. MPJ -DK 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 02:45, 3 April 2010 [24].
List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes
- Nominator(s): Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a lot of time on it, and it's the main article in a topic I'm writing. It's about the freak tropical cyclones that don't form during the normal season. Short, sweet, and too the point. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oh, one little comment, i have no opinion one way or another on the title, whether it should be "off-season Atlantic hurricanes" or "off-season Atlantic tropical cyclones". --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of some of these issues, but there's still a lot to do, and seeing as this has been up for 3 weeks now, I would like to withdraw it, rather than continue. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC):[reply]
Deaths and damages are reversed under the 2007 hurricane, Olga.- Ref 20, [25], appears to be dead.
- The two images appear to lack alt text. See what's been written for Hurricane Rick for an idea on what it should look like [26] See WP:ALT for more precise guidelines.
The first paragraph of Records and statistics: "[...]most recently Tropical Depression One in 2009." You might consider rephrasing this, so that this information will remain correct in the event that another out of season hurricane occurs and the article isn't updated.
Images are verifiably in the public domain (although the source page for the Hurricane Alice image was dead, here is the proper link [27], in case anyone cares), no ambiguous links. Good luck!
OK, I fixed the image for Alice, switched the damage/deaths for Olga, replaced the olga links w/ one single link thats more official, and added alt texts. i didn't change the wording about the "most recently", since the entire article will have to be updated when there's another off-season storm. Thanks a lot for your review! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, yeah, I suppose that's true. Ok. I'm striking my previous comments, and supporting on all but one count (the article is stable; the prose seems to be high quality; the lead is short, but it is a short article; no structural issues that I can see; and style appears to be in line with requirements) The only exception would be criterion (3). Not that it isn't comprehensive, I just don't feel qualified to judge it one way or the other (sorry). Nice, brief article. Best wishes! ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sweet, thanks! Viennaiswaiting (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as this list covers all known off season AHS cyclones. This being merged into an global list wouldnt work IMO as there are no preseason Cyclones in the Western Pacific/Northern Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This list is inconsistent in its treatment of off-season tropical depressions. In the parts of the list covering recent times, it has no problem linking to tropical depressions. However, for parts of the list covering earlier times, it doesn't bother linking to them (not even section links). To a much lesser extent, this also applies to tropical storms. Perhaps it ought to be consistent in how it treats OSTC's across different timeframes. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I went back through and made sure there was proper links for every tropical storm, subtropical storm, or tropical depression that had a section in a season article. Some didn't have a section in the season article, so I left those unlinked. Originally, I only linked those with articles, but this works too. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I can support now then. Many older seasons usually don't have much to say about tropical depressions, and probably don't need their own section as it probably isn't worth it to have a section that maxes out at one sentence. However, a full of discussion of what to do about this doesn't belong at this FLC page. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back through and made sure there was proper links for every tropical storm, subtropical storm, or tropical depression that had a section in a season article. Some didn't have a section in the season article, so I left those unlinked. Originally, I only linked those with articles, but this works too. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a really quick browse...
- Lead is inadequate. Needs to "summarise" the whole article. There are numerous examples of our current featured lists which would help.
- Date ranges should use unspaced en-dashes, not spaced hyphens per WP:DASH.
- List could easily be made sortable.
- The color key fails WP:ACCESS as there doesn't seem to be a way of discerning what a color means without the color. In other words, if I can't discern color, I can't use the key.
- Region affected - there are often more than one, so shouldn't this be Region(s)?
- Spaced hyphens in the references. Not per MOS please.
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thx for reviewing: lead is longer, i see you did the date range and spaced hyphens (i think), the list is now sortable, and now its "region(s) affected". the colors are based off the saffir-simpson scale, which is at the top-right of the climo section: should i say in prose what the colours represent? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortability goes nuts when you sort by date... (in Safari at least) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- should i remove the sortability then?? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or fix it. It usually goes wrong when you have colspans or rowspans. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing colspans/rowspans should fix the table sorting issue. If you still require two rows at the top (and need to prevent the second row being part of the sort), check out the sortbottom trick at Help:Sorting#Excluding rows from sorting. But you need to fix up the sorting on the dates anyway. Currently your months are being sorted alphabetically, so "April", "December", "February, "January", etc. You'll need to use the {{sort}} template to fix this up. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, should be good. Viennaiswaiting (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing colspans/rowspans should fix the table sorting issue. If you still require two rows at the top (and need to prevent the second row being part of the sort), check out the sortbottom trick at Help:Sorting#Excluding rows from sorting. But you need to fix up the sorting on the dates anyway. Currently your months are being sorted alphabetically, so "April", "December", "February, "January", etc. You'll need to use the {{sort}} template to fix this up. --Tntnnbltn (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or fix it. It usually goes wrong when you have colspans or rowspans. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- should i remove the sortability then?? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sortability goes nuts when you sort by date... (in Safari at least) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- thx for reviewing: lead is longer, i see you did the date range and spaced hyphens (i think), the list is now sortable, and now its "region(s) affected". the colors are based off the saffir-simpson scale, which is at the top-right of the climo section: should i say in prose what the colours represent? Viennaiswaiting (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More...
- When sorting by name the #-named storms don't sort in the correct order.
- When a date spans you use an en-dash, when the seasons span you use a slash. Be consistent.
- Pressure column doesn't sort correctly.
- N/A means not applicable or not available? I would add a quick note to be sure.
- Damage column doesn't sort correctly.
- Deaths column doesn't sort correctly.
- As per the color discussion above, you need to ensure that the storms identified with colors are also identified with something that is non-color related, e.g. a * or a ^ or similar.
The Rambling Man (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now:
- Lead:
- Image caption describes Hurricane Alice as "the first Atlantic hurricane to span two calendar years". Shouldn't this be first recorded hurricane to span two years, as opposed the first hurricane?
- What years does this article cover? At the bottom of the article it says "In the official Atlantic hurricane database, the first storm to occur outside of the current season was in 1865", and searching around I found this goes back to 1851, but there is no mention of this in the article. It would be worthwhile explicitly mentioning what date ranges this list covers.
- First sentence sounds a little forced because it includes the name of the article for bolding purposes. MOS:BOLDTITLE says you don't need to include the article title (or bold it) if the title is sufficiently descriptive. You could probably make the first sentence sound more natural if you don't include the text "list of off-season Atlantic hurricanes".
- The second and third sentences of the lead explicitly talk about 'on-season' rather than 'off-season'. It's a bit jarring when I'm expecting to read about off-season hurricanes.
- Lead says that "The [Atlantic hurricane] season is currently defined from June 1 to November 30". Defined by who? Also, with the sentence above I'm not sure about the wording. I'd prefer "The United States Weather Bureau currently defines the Atlantic hurricane season as occuring between June 1 and November 30 each calendar year."
- "Of the storms that struck land, areas of the Caribbean Sea were affected most." -- In general, prose could use tightening up. Also, shouldn't this be areas surrounding the Caribbean Sea? Areas of the Caribbean Sea itself is just sea, and doesn't match the part about striking land.
- (There's probably more which I can say about tightening up the prose and deciding which things to include in the intro vs the background vs the statistics, but I'll see how the article changes with my feedback first)
- Background:
- In the background it says "The Atlantic hurricane season was not always as long as it is now." This sentence seems redundant as is; I'm going to find out that in the next two sentences anyway.
- One of the references mentions re: start/end dates that "the end date has been slowly shifted outward, from October 31st to November 15th until its current date of November 30th." In the background section it seemed like there was a single date range in 1938, which was changed to a new date range in 1964. There was no mention of any changes inbetween or otherwise.
- It mentions definitions of the hurricane season by the United States Weather Bureau. Do any of the other nations mentioned under "Region(s) affected" operate their own meterology services? If so, do any of these other nations have definitions for the hurricane season? Are they the same as the US definitions or different? When were these definitions implemented? (I don't know if there are any answers to these questions, but I'm genuinely curious. I realise most of the source material is from the US, but a worldwide perspective would be great if possible)
- The 'hurricane season' was first defined in 1938, yet the list includes cyclones which occurred prior to that. What definition of off-season is being using for these cyclones? I don't think it's explicitly mentioned that cyclones prior to to 1938 are being classified as on- or off-season based on the current definitions.
- Similarly, what definition is being used for cyclones that occured between 1938 and 1965? When it occurred, Tropical Storm Thirteen (1953) would have been defined as an off-season storm by 1953 standards, but isn't included in this list.
- List:
- To my knowledge, units should be left uncapitalised in the table headings. i.e. "Winds (km/h)", not "Winds (Km/h)"
- The table uses a pattern of "Wind [linebreak] (units)", but then used "Pressure [linebreak] units (equivalent units)". Why is "knots" in brackets but "Mbar" isn't?
- As The Rumbling Man mentioned above, Names for numbered storms, Pressure, Damage and Deaths columns don't sort correctly. Read up on Help:Sorting#Numeric sorting with hidden key
- Currently when sorting by alphabetical order, "Unnamed" sits between "Peter" and "Zeta". Given that the term 'Unnamed' is arbitrarily given anyway, I'd prefer if you used the sort template so that these are separated from named cyclones. i.e. {{sort|!|Unnamed}}. ("!" is one of the few characters which will sort before "#1")
- When you fix the above sorting, I'd define "Several" deaths as a number greater than 0 in the sort template so they sort seperately to 0 deaths
- Every mention of deaths other than Arlene (1959) and Ana (2003) cites a reference for the death toll. Why are these two unreferenced?
- Same deal as above for the "Minimal" damages of Arlene (1981) and Lili (1984)
- For cyclones with 0 death toll there is no reference for that number. I assume that such information is more readily available when there is an actual death toll to report, but are you sure there were no deaths for each of those other storms? For all I know, whoever wrote the article might've not searched hard enough for a death toll number and just assumed there were no deaths because they didn't read anything to indicate the contrary.
Statistics:
- Your table under monthly statistics defines the listed months as "Month of formation", but the image on the right does not make a similar definition.
- Do you need a separate section for "Monthly statistics"? In the previous section called "Records and statistics" you already started describing the frequency of storms by month ("Storms were most likely to occur in May, followed by December.")
- "Only one cyclone was reported in March, in 1908, [...]" -- Every cyclone in this paragraph includes its name with the exception of this one
- "[...] and only one tropical storm has ever occurred in February or April, the 1952 Groundhog Day Storm and Tropical Storm Ana of 2003, respectively" -- If there was only one in February and one in March, how come the table says "February - 2" and "April - 7"? Either something is wrong here or needs clarifying.
- "Overall, there have been 58 tropical cyclones in each [emphasis added] month between December and May" - 52 tropical cyclones per month? :)
--Tntnnbltn (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. I see I have a lot to do, a lot of small errors, so I'm going to withdraw it and work on it some more. --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 01:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:23, 16 April 2010 [28].
Aurealis Award for best science fiction novel
Well following the trend of Aurealis Award for best horror novel and Aurealis Award for best fantasy novel, here is its science fiction equivalent. Note, i omitted the "ties situation" sentence for this list because there hasnt been any ties as of yet, but if anyone feels it should be re-added ill do that in an instance. Thanks, Salavat (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - been a while, and I apologise for the lack of comments from anyone. So here's some stuff...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support I prefer this format. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Mm40 (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC). Well well, we meet again![reply]
The caption is worded oddly; I suggest "The Aurealis Award design is often placed on the winning books' cover as a promotional tool." or something similarIs there any information on when (i.e. what month) in the following year the award ceremony is held?- It doesnt appear to be consistent from a look at the locus online references. The last three years have been in january but before that they have been in february and march. And the only mention of the ceremony date on the official site is for this years ceremony and not an overall hosting date. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using both "short list" and "short-list"I think you're missing a comma after the year here: "Since 2003 hounarable mentions have been". Also, is there a reference for this change being made in 2003?- Fixed the comma issue. The sentence on honourable mentions isnt really a referencable thing, its more like a statement to just say that they started. It wasnt a change to the awards and they dont give any direct reasons why they exist however you would assume the obvious. The only mention of honourable mentions is in the guideline for judges [29], but that doesnt state why they can be included by the judges. I dont think there would be any real reason other the the judges wanting to make a mention of the book, and they havent all started in 2003, eg young-adult cat only has 2005, it appears to be upon the judges whim, but as there isnt anything that states that i cant add it as a reason. Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section names should not include "novel". Thus, "Novel winners and nominees" → "Winners and nominees" and "Honourable mention novels" → "Honourable mentions"This is just a personal preference, but consider centering the tables by addingstyle="text-align:center"
at the beginningSince some books have multiple authors, I think the "Author" column heading should be "Author(s)"Really nitpicky, I know, but I think the last column would look nicer without the period after "Ref."
That's all I can find, I look forward to supporting once the above issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people would raise the question that your "meet again" might be a polite way of saying "stalking" :). But either way its all good to me. Thanks for the review, Salavat (talk) 14:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 00:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Jujutacular T · C 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [30].
Taylor Swift discography
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria to become a Featured List in Wikipedia. Most likely all that is missing are minor things. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Oppose. Chart Stats should not be used as a source. Numerous better sources exist (Music Week, ChartsPlus, ...).
Goodraise 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)Goodraise 02:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chartstats is listed as website used as archive on Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts. So, I think its perfectly usable. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid being listed on some random Wikipedia page doesn't make a source reliable. The one page that matters is the one linked from the featured list criteria: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Goodraise 23:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Questionable sources and it does not seem to violate it. There is no poor reputation for checking facts. There is editorial oversight. It does not express "views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.". Furthermore, Chartstats.com is used on FL discographies like Gwen Stefani discography, Hilary Duff discography, Madonna albums discography, Madonna singles discography, and Rihanna discography. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 02:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know that there is editorial oversight? Where is the evidence of Chart Stats' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? As for those other lists using Chart Stats, feel free to fix them. Goodraise 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had no editorial oversight then just anyone or any user could edit the website and it doesn't work like that. But that may be me speculating. If it had a bad reputation, it would be on Wikipedia's black list or be mentioned on Wikipedia pages or guidelines, but since it's not, I think can be used without problem. There is nothing saying the website cannot be used as a source or even advising against using the source. On the contrary, Template:Singlechart#Non-Billboard charts advises to use the website. What is your reason for questioning Chartstats.com as a reliable source? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 04:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The absence of an edit button is no proof of editorial oversight and that black list is not what you think it is. -- I am saying the source should not be used. The documentation of some template says it can be used. Neither matters. The only thing that does is whether WP:RS is met. -- I don't need a reason to question Chart Stats' reliability. It's not "Reliable until proven unreliable." It's the other way round. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ChartStats is a reliable source as per WP:CHARTS. Extensive discussions have happened there regarding this, and consensus is to use the website. Please don't oppose based on that. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CHARTS is a style guideline and as such has no business concerning itself with the reliability of sources. As for those extensive discussions, I assume they contain some convincing arguments as to how Chart Stats meets WP:RS? If they don't, then that "consensus" is worth squat. Goodraise 06:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does. One of the recent discussions is Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Chart Stats, Zobbel, everyHit and αCharts.us. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So then, what are those arguments? What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 23:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the discussion, ChartStats "has the flow diagram on there which no other UK sources have. ChartStats should be used according to Wikipedia:GOODCHARTS as it always seems reliable and it's the only one that can be used with the {{singlechart}} macro system." -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 03:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't answer my question. What is it that makes Chart Stats a reliable source? Goodraise 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That it's factual. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- If you check positions in Chart Stats and the actual page, positions 1 - 100 are archived with correct information. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not enough, even if it is true. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources does not say that sources which contain only correct information are reliable. As far as I can tell, Chart Stats is nothing but an anonymously published website with no reputation for fact-checking or accuracy. Goodraise 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is you complete personal opinion and you have absolutely nothing to back it up. It is currently being used in many articles and is approved by WP:CHARTS. That's all we need to use it. If you have a problem, leave a comment on the page's talk. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All your arguments on why the site should be considered reliable boil down to "because other Wikipedia editors think it should". You don't see a problem with that? As for back-up, mine is called WP:V, which is policy and therefore takes precedence over that style guideline of yours. As WP:V puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As far as I know, that's not the case here.
Until I hear some solid and substantiated argument as to why I should consider that page reliable, I will remain opposed, no matter how many editors, style guidelines, and template documentation pages tell me to do otherwise. Goodraise 02:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The flaw with that is: WP:V is not in doubt. The difference you have is with WP:RS which is a guideline and like wise WP:GOODCHARTS which is also guideline, both are to be applied with common sense meaning there are exceptions to them. WP:Consensus(a policy) has established that ChartStats is an acceptable source and thus it is listed in WP:GOODCHARTS, but if you feel consensus can change in this case then bring up the issue on WT:CHARTS. In the mean while I not would recommend attempting to derail on article for FLC by editors who are doing exactly what is appropriate to meet the recommended guidelines. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a difference with WP:RS. Throw RS out of the window, forget I even mentioned it, and I'd still be opposing this FLC for violating WP:V. As for that consensus I keep hearing about, there's no such thing, only a group of editors who apparently think that they can themselves provide a source with sufficient credibility. But lets take a step back. Above policy stands common sense. So, answer me this: Why should I (being a reader of Wikipedia) believe anything that's written on Chart Stats? Any answer to this question that boils down to "Because one or more Wikipedia editors think so." is not good enough. Goodraise 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All your arguments on why the site should be considered reliable boil down to "because other Wikipedia editors think it should". You don't see a problem with that? As for back-up, mine is called WP:V, which is policy and therefore takes precedence over that style guideline of yours. As WP:V puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." As far as I know, that's not the case here.
- sorry to butt in here, but in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you (Goodraise) are the only editor that feels the way you do. so that shows that there is consensus among other editors and admins alike. there are many discussions about uk sources, all of them with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source, so take your views to those instead of filling up every single discography you review. Mister sparky (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you ... are the only editor that feels the way you do." - Easily proven wrong.
"there are many discussions ... with many examples of undoubtedly reliably sources that use chartstats as a source" - Where are those discussions? More importantly, where are those examples? Thus far, I've seen not a single one.
As for filling up FLCs, what I have to say takes one line. Hardly too much. Goodraise 05:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "in all of my time being an editor and all the discussions and whatnot about uk chart sources, you ... are the only editor that feels the way you do." - Easily proven wrong.
- the bbc news, bbc radio, reuters, sky news, the telegraph newspaper reporting uk parliament debates about eurovision chart entries, norwegian newspapers etc etc. but its become quite clear nothing is going to change your mind. as with all opinions on chart sources, thats just what they are, personal opinions. but the majority of opposes you give to discographies makes no difference anyways.Mister sparky (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you mean the ones given here? The ones citing EveryHit.com? Goodraise 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yep cuz you had probs with that as well. there were more with chartstats. but doesnt matter anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you keep insisting that there were such examples in regard to Chart Stats in those discussions, but instead of backing up that claim with proof, you suggest that I am unreasonable, that I would continue to oppose FLCs using the source even in the face of strong evidence of its reliability? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Have I displayed such a behavior in the past? Goodraise 22:14, 23 March 2010(UTC)
- Seriously, if you have a problem with ChartStats.com, then write a comment on Wikipedia talk: Record charts, not here. This isn't the page to decide whether a source is reliable or not. I just follow Wikipedia guidelines, which state that ChartStats.com is perfectly fine. If you reach a consensus opposing the use of the website, then come here and I will gladly change the source. But as for right now, ChartStats.com is considered a reliable source. Thank you. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let us for one second assume that Wikipedia:Record charts is not a style guideline, but a content guideline, and that neither Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor Wikipedia:Verifiability have any say whatsoever in questions of source reliability. So, what is Wikipedia:Record charts' decree? Perhaps it is "Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives". Take a good look at the page. The only time that Chart Stats is mentioned there is in the sentence "Archived at Chart Stats." It states nowhere that Chart Stats is a reliable source. -- By the way, in the article, you've labeled Chart Stats as being published by The Official Charts Company. If that were the case, I wouldn't oppose its usage. Goodraise 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per [31], the site has editorial review and information is retrieved from reliable sources such as Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That page says nothing about editorial oversight. The only indication is the "Contact Me" link on the left, which suggests to me that the site is run by a single (not to mention anonymous) individual. Even if that person is vigilantly overseeing his/her/its own work, that's nowhere near good enough. As for the sources used, Wikipedia uses reliable sources too, but that doesn't make it reliable itself. Now, if Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC were using Chart Stats as a source, that would be a different story. Goodraise 18:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per [31], the site has editorial review and information is retrieved from reliable sources such as Yahoo!, The Official Charts Company, and the BBC. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 16:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let us for one second assume that Wikipedia:Record charts is not a style guideline, but a content guideline, and that neither Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources nor Wikipedia:Verifiability have any say whatsoever in questions of source reliability. So, what is Wikipedia:Record charts' decree? Perhaps it is "Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives". Take a good look at the page. The only time that Chart Stats is mentioned there is in the sentence "Archived at Chart Stats." It states nowhere that Chart Stats is a reliable source. -- By the way, in the article, you've labeled Chart Stats as being published by The Official Charts Company. If that were the case, I wouldn't oppose its usage. Goodraise 03:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yep cuz you had probs with that as well. there were more with chartstats. but doesnt matter anyways. Mister sparky (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you mean the ones given here? The ones citing EveryHit.com? Goodraise 17:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It says "The singles archive was provided very kindly by Colin at PolyHex and the albums chart archive was kindly published by Lonnie of DistantStar on the UKmix forums." And I have no way of finding out if the website is licensed. Once again, take it up with Wikipedia guidelines not this article. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Wonderfully constructed discography. Improved much from the ongoing fan-war edits happening when I last checked. Here are my issues.
- A comma after Swift in the line The discography of American country music recording artist Taylor Swift.
- done
- In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200,[1] peaked at number-one Top Country Albums --> Sounds awkward. Try In the United States, Taylor Swift peaked at number five on the Billboard 200, and number one on Top Country Albums. Be consistent with number-one and number one.
- done
- Taylor Swift marked the longest stay on the Billboard 200 by any album released in the decade. --> Which decade?
- done
- with the releases of the EPs --> with the release of the EPs
- done
- Swift obtained her biggest debut on the Billboard Hot 100 in February 2010 --> Mention that it debuted at 2.
- done
- Remove NZ certification from Fearless. Minor market certifications are not listed. It's for the album article.
- done
- Same from the singles tables.
- done
- The note links don't work.
- They work for me and there are no dead links per [32]. Please check again. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about references. The notes like [A], [B], [C]. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, haha...I don't understand why. I evaluated them and compared them to other notes and don't know why. Could it be because some letters are repeated since I put it as one per section? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be. Try Madonna singles discography and copy the different note jargons from it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did and I think that's the problem, but how could I unite all of those notes if there are three different sections? I guess put them into a section called songs or something and then the rest as subsections. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think put different alphabets for the sections. Like in the first section there's A, B, C as the notes. In the next section, don't start with a new A, B, C. Start from D, E... --Legolas (talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfect. You are a genius! -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 06:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think put different alphabets for the sections. Like in the first section there's A, B, C as the notes. In the next section, don't start with a new A, B, C. Start from D, E... --Legolas (talk2me) 06:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did and I think that's the problem, but how could I unite all of those notes if there are three different sections? I guess put them into a section called songs or something and then the rest as subsections. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be. Try Madonna singles discography and copy the different note jargons from it. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, haha...I don't understand why. I evaluated them and compared them to other notes and don't know why. Could it be because some letters are repeated since I put it as one per section? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about references. The notes like [A], [B], [C]. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They work for me and there are no dead links per [32]. Please check again. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher for allmusic is Rovi Corporation not Macrovision.
- done
- Ref 3 and 6 for RIAA, use an en-dash(–) b/w RIAA and Gold. Check for the dashes in the other sources also.
- done
- For the Hung Medien references, give the work as the main charting source, like ARIA Charts for australian-charts, tracklisten for the danish ones, etc.
- Don't understand. Coudl you please explain? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Concerns have been addressed. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from liquidluck✽talk 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I've edited the article in the past so I would have a bit of a COI supporting, but here's a few comments:
liquidluck✽talk 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment – The lead looks worthy of an FL, but I noticed a reference issue above involving Chartstats, which is used to source UK chart positions. Since I have no knowledge regarding what chart sites are reliable, I wanted to ask something from another point of view, namely what alternatives are there? Is there something online that is considered reliable, so that old magazines don't have to be individually cited? Or are the magazines the only source here that won't be questioned? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This would of course be considered acceptable, but unfortunately it doesn't come out till November. The current edition only covers up to 2007..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:36, 24 April 2010 [33].
List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee
This list presents the 54 men and women who have awarded what is arguable the world's most prestigious prize. Hopefully, it also meets the FL criteria. Arsenikk (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good list! A few comments though,
- Parties are not linked, as it is sortable they cd all be wikilinked
- The agrarian party is not linked properly? Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Agrarian Party and the Centre Party are the same (they changed their name half a century ago to get more votes). Therefore, the former sorts as the latter.
- The agrarian party is not linked properly? Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not chaired between 1909-22 ? Shd be explained in note or corrected.
- Solved Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If images had same size it'll look better.
- See WP:Images for how to force same size. Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to experiment, but no matter what I do, some of the images will look bad. There are also accessibility reasons to use default image sizes, and use of "upright" should make them correct. I notice Jørgen Løvland was not "uprighted", so it should look better now.
- See WP:Images for how to force same size. Sandman888 (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your sources is in Norwegian. Per WP:Sources English is preferred, perhaps other could be found. Sandman888 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. The problem with the images is that two of the (Løvland and Lundestad) have been uploaded at thumbnail size, and are therefore not displayed at more than such. Note that almost the entire article is sourced from English sources, except the bios of the current members (which links the the extremely reliable bio section of the Norwegian Parliament website) and an article about the internal nomination procedures within parliament (which I have not been able to find in English sources). As I live in Norway, I cannot go down to the library and borrow an English-language book on a Norwegian topic, but I did add an online source for the controversies. I'll have a little look around, but I can't say I'm optimistic. Arsenikk (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - forgot that. Sandman888 (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work on my nit-picking. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. This gives C. B. Hanssen as "deputy chairman, [...] 1923". Is it impossible to find info about old deputy chairmen and include this in the table? Geschichte (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) is without doubt a reliable source, it raises the question of why the Norwegian Nobel Committee has refrained from including the information of deputies before 1991. I have tried to search for committee members sitting at the same time, and NSD seems to be incomplete—some people are not even listed as members of the Nobel Committee. Given the limiting information NSD provides, I cannot see how a complete list of deputies can be created, nor can I use it to verity that the post-1991 position is the same as the pre-1991 position (if it existed)—and why it is left out of the Norwegian Nobel Institute's list. For that matter, NSD could not even be used to create a complete list of committee members, deputies or not. Arsenikk (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Geschichte (talk) 06:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) is without doubt a reliable source, it raises the question of why the Norwegian Nobel Committee has refrained from including the information of deputies before 1991. I have tried to search for committee members sitting at the same time, and NSD seems to be incomplete—some people are not even listed as members of the Nobel Committee. Given the limiting information NSD provides, I cannot see how a complete list of deputies can be created, nor can I use it to verity that the post-1991 position is the same as the pre-1991 position (if it existed)—and why it is left out of the Norwegian Nobel Institute's list. For that matter, NSD could not even be used to create a complete list of committee members, deputies or not. Arsenikk (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Historically, the committee's members have represented seven political parties, also including the Liberal Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democratic Party). I do not know where to put an opening parenthesis.
- the committee was renamed the The Nobel Committee of the Parliament of Norway, I think one "the" is enough.
- and sat in parliament representing Hordaland from 1989 to 1993, and as a deputy from 1993 to 2001. What does deputy mean here? It can mean a member of parliament, for instance.
- All notes in the 'Notes' section are complete sentences and should have a period at the end.
Ruslik_Zero 13:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. I specified Ytterhorn as a "deputy member of parliament". Arsenikk (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, I support now. Ruslik_Zero 15:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:14, 14 April 2010 [34].
MusiCares Person of the Year
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria and is very similar to Grammy Legend Award except that it also contains the lifetime column for additional information. I believe links, alt text, disambigs, etc. should be up to standard. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - nice list.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Another great awards list. I can't see anything of concern. Pyrrhus16 17:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comment Looks great; one question: should this list go into Category:Grammy Awards?Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A very good list. Jaespinoza (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I couldn't find anything to gripe about :) good work. Jujutacular T · C 19:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:56, 8 April 2010 [35].
List of accolades received by Avatar
- Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list was created to include all major and regional awards and nominations for the film Avatar. It is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements (to my knowledge) for a featured list. The content will be stable since all major awards for which the film would qualify have now been awarded and any future accolades would likely encompass "Best of..." or "Top films of..." types of inclusion in the future. DrNegative (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Knee-jerk lead comments
Deal with these first, then I'll review the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Very nice list, and I see no further problems. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
*Comment I don't think File:Avatar (2009 film) poster.jpg can be justifiably included in this list. It does not aid readers' understanding of the awards the film received (the main focus of the list). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
- Support Everything looks good to me. Great work. Jujutacular T · C 19:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll support once these nitpicks are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Addendum: I don't think the fair-use image is justified in this case. It does not enhance the readers understanding of the article. Mm40 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly feel that a picture of the producer and director holding the film's most prestigious accolade, which is also mentioned in the lead and table, would help the reader. However, as a reviewer your opinion takes precedence over mine and if you want me to remove it, I will axe it. DrNegative (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. Removed. DrNegative (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. In addition to Jujutacular's reasoning, the purpose of use given is very weak: "To show the reader a pic in the infobox and to give them scope as to what the article is about, in this case Avatar's awards." The scope is made quite clear in the list's title. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must agree with Mm40. From WP:FU: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". While this certainly would qualify for fair use under US copyright law, our policies are more stringent. A similar photo could plausibly be taken and released under a free license. I would suggest using File:JamesCameronCCJuly09.jpg. in its place. Jujutacular T · C 20:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Images aren't my strong point, so can other reviewers comment on it? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help and guidance everyone. DrNegative (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:58, 13 April 2010 [36].
IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship
I am nominating this for featured list because... I want to raise the level of anything I can. This is the only active New Japan championship that is not an FL. If any reviewers have a nomination they would like a review on, present the link here and I will be sure to review it. Also, I am apart of the WikiCup. This was at one point an FL, so I know there is a chance of it getting there again.--WillC 09:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing director If this is promoted, don't forget to update WP:FFL. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support
Resolved comments fromMPJ-DK |
---|
That's it for now. MPJ -DK 10:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Woops forgot to move this down the other day. MPJ -DK 05:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – My comments were taken care of before; I was just waiting on the resolution of MPJ's batch before supporting. Seems to meet the standards now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:49, 30 March 2010 [37].
Savilian Professor of Geometry
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another list of Oxford professors for your amusement. This one includes such stars as Edmond Halley, after whom the comet is named. All comments gratefully received. BencherliteTalk 09:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I like – Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ta very muchly. BencherliteTalk 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Goodraise 09:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Weak support. Alt texts have some room for improvement. Otherwise, the list meets the criteria. Goodraise 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Most of my concerns have been addressed by the nominator. The one that hasn't has become invalid because of recent developments at WP:ALT. Goodraise 22:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question How did you derive the inflation factor from 1620 to 2010 which makes £150 equal to £24,000? (and shouldn't be 2009, not 2010?).Sandman888 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using ref 4 I would suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is I'd like the formula used which gives a factor of 24,000/150 Sandman888 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's generated by {{inflation}}. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source provided doesn't have the inflation rate for 2010. Neither is it an entirely routine calculation, so it might be helpful to write how it's calculated Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point, I've changed it to "in present day terms", which is the wording suggested by {{inflation/doc}} (hadn't spotted that before). As for setting out the calculation to avoid it being "original research" (which is I assume what you're getting at with your link to the essay WP:NOTOR), well, no. (1) It's a calculation carried out by an established template; (2) it can be replicated from the website if one chooses to do so; (3) updating an old value for inflation is a routine calculation, I think. I'm not going to give a footnote along the lines of "to work out the present value of £150 from 1620, we divide £150 by the RPI figure for 1620 and multiply it by the most recently available figure". BencherliteTalk 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source provided doesn't have the inflation rate for 2010. Neither is it an entirely routine calculation, so it might be helpful to write how it's calculated Sandman888 (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's generated by {{inflation}}. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I mean is I'd like the formula used which gives a factor of 24,000/150 Sandman888 (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Given that none of the persons are redlinked, I'd prefer if the educational background was skipped so the 'Notes' column would focus on their contribution to science, which, I presume, is why the list is noteworthy Sandman888 (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's the first time I've been asked to make an FLC less informative, I think. I'd prefer to keep it, as in a university-based list, it's interesting (I think) to see which of the names were educated there and which were educated elsewhere. BencherliteTalk 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
For the most part though, excellent read. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Staxringold talkcontribs 04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Some very light issues, not much to complain about here at all:
"Savile reserved to himself" - is "reserved to himself" a British English turn of phrase? Reserved for himself sounds better to my American ears (as in He reserved the right for himself if the sentence is restructured), but you all are the experts over there.- Yes, that works in Brit Eng.
"straight away" - is that two words or one... or can it be either?- My Concise Oxford Dictionary tells me that "straight away" is Brit Eng and "straightaway" is US Eng...
In Wallis: "He was appointedaskeeper of the university archives in 1658"- Zapped.
That's really it! Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review. BencherliteTalk 14:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 3 April 2010 [38].
List of Drexel University alumni
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it now meets FL criterion after working on it for the past few months. It recently underwent a peer review and I believe all of those issues have been addressed. --ImGz (t/c) 16:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - some quick things...
Just a quick run-through.. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment Is this list identical to the Drexel 100? Maybe indicate who's on 100 and request a delete of the other list? Sandman888 (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the only alumni list for Drexel on wiki. The Drexel 100 is just more or less the 'hall of fame' of the alumni association. People they choose for the Drexel 100 would not all meet WP:N and the Drexel 100 is limited to living members so deleting the current list and replacing it with just Drexel 100 members would exclude most of the current alumni on the list and add a whole lot of non-notable people to it as well. I think I'm just going to remove mention of the Drexel 100 since it adds more confusion than clarification.. --ImGz (t/c) 16:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably should have said I will remove it rather than I probably will. I have gone ahead and removed references to the Drexel 100 since it doesn't add anything to the article other than 'oh hai, drexel has a hall of fame within the alumni association'. Hopefully this clears up some confusion.. --ImGz (t/c) 01:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Jeff Parke, the soccer player included in the list, is apparently going to play this season for Seattle Sounders FC. The season starts tomorrow, so it's not too early to update this.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from User:GrapedApe
Broad question - steps have you taken to try to make the list as comprehensive as possible?
- Checked categories, went through the 1,000+ search results for Drexel U, Drexel Institute, etc, went through print sources.
Why does Rudolph Weaver have two class year? Two different degrees?
- Clarified.
There are lots of short notability descriptions that don't really give a good sense of why that person is notable. Things like "Illustrator," "Filmmaker," "Filipino architect" don't really mean a lot.
- Done.
For the "unknown" alumni, like William H. Milliken, Jr., Harry Sidhu, Jack Wall, what is unknown? Is the graduation year unknown, or is it unknown whether that person graduated at all? There should be clarification on that.
- Clarified table.
- The tables should probably be constructed with the {{Alum}} template, IMHO.
- Looks like the refs for Arthur Raymond Randolph and Albert Branson Maris are dead. I suspect that the Federal Judicial Center is temporarily down.
- I noticed that a few days ago, strange for a .gov site to be down that long so I did some searching on the website - it looks like they've overhauled it and have the pages at a different address so I've updated the citations. Thanks for the comments btw!--ImGz (t/c) 00:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 06:57, 7 April 2010 [39].
List of National Basketball Association season rebounding leaders
I am nominating this for featured list because... I've not done one for a while :). —Chris!c/t 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initial comment Could you include a basic definition of a rebound (and perhaps offensive vs. defensive, since you mention them) as the similar baseball lists nominated below do? As with a home run or earned run average, someone not familiar with basketball would have no idea what a rebound is. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added, though I am not sure where to put it.—Chris!c/t 05:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think right where it is works nicely. "The NBA recognizes the rebound leader each year. BTW, here's what a rebound is." Since it's a rate stat, rather than a counting one, could you dig up and add whatever qualifications there are for winning the title? I assume there are some, like if someone had a 14 rebound game in their debut last year they couldn't just sit out the rest of the season and win the rebound title with 14 RPG in one game over Howard's 13 and change. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, the minimum statistics requirement should be mentioned, basketball-reference has a complete page on this. — Martin tamb (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*"The rebounding title was first ..." not sure if you need to repeat "rebounding" here as it's clear what title you're talking about.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment There is a dead link; please check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
Support – Was waiting to see if Martin's comment below would get a response, but I guess it doesn't matter too much, as the criteria seem to be met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great list, made a few fixes and just one comment: it would be interesting to know which players that have won both the rebounding title and the MVP in the same season. — Martin tamb (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made a few copy-edits for grammar and precision. The list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (regardless of the active definition) Mm40 (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
All I can find in an otherwise very good list. I'll be happy to support once my nitpicks are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:52, 10 April 2010 [40].
List of Moonlighting episodes
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The greatest TV show in the history of the world ever, at least according to my wife. While I wouldn't go quite that far, it's a pretty cool show and so, twenty-five years to the very day since the first episode aired, I present this list for your consideration. Please let me know what still needs tweaking. I'm on the right hand side of the Atlantic, but have done my best to write in that crazy colonial form of English :-) And in the interests of full disclosure, I'm not in the WikiCup ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I like the fact that the lead in the list is so much better than the lead in the main article. Sandman888 (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made an American English fix in the summary of Episode 3 - "Blue Moon is..." instead of "Blue Moon are..." Make sure the rest of the list uses this convention as well. Jujutacular T · C 18:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - there was only one more. I also changed "the Blue Moon team are" to "the Blue Moon team is" - is that correct? I'm sure I read somewhere that "team" is considered a singular noun in American English...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments daunting list, so that's probably why it's been overlooked for 3.5 weeks. Apologies for that Chris... so my bits 'n' pieces...
That's a start, my dinner's on the way, so episode critiques will follow after you've looked at these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 15:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Jujutacular T · C 20:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 07:37, 6 April 2010 [41].
List of number-one Billboard Top Latin Songs from the 1980s
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because all comments for improvement were adressed. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
This is a very nice list: appealing, engaging, and useful (despite my laundry list of issues above). I'm looking forward to supporting once these are dealt with. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support: a nice list, well presented. Good work. Harrias (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I copy-edited the lead a bit, but could otherwise find nothing to fix. The list meets all of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment A weird change in verb usage in the first paragraph: "The data were compiled...", "This data is compiled..." Jujutacular T · C 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Looks good. Jujutacular T · C 21:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 07:42, 16 April 2010 [42].
List of Medal of Honor recipients
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria for featured list. This is the second submission. Kumioko (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Staxringold talkcontribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I commented during the Basketball HoF list, I feel some of the sections without tables need expanded leads to provide a satisfactory summary of what is to be found at the main article. The Civil War summary, for example, is summarizing more than 1500 medals awarded. Yet, it receives only a couple sentences, far less than the Spanish American War or the Boxer Rebellion. The World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam have reasonable length summaries, but I feel that the Civil War, Indian Wars, and Peacetime sections need serious expansion to properly cover the topic within. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct that Michael E. Thornton was the last man to receive the medal while still alive (he got his in 72, so later than the Liberty incident)? Worth mentioning?
- Is there any info on why the medal was so commonplace, relatively, in the Civil and Indian Wars?
- Thanks all good points and Ill get to those suggestions right away. On the last point the answer is yes, it was pretty much the only award they could get till world war I. There were a few campaign ribbons, brevet promotions and the purple heart (known as the Medal of merit back then) but for valor, that was it. --Kumioko (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The section heads are still quite quite short. See List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame for an example of serious length. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reywas92Talk 22:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ;Comments[reply]
- There is some image problem for the Korean Expedition - there's whitespace on the right of the images.
- Sections with the list as a subarticle should summarize that list. How many people earned the medal in that conflict? Most give a description of the conflict itself, but nothing about the medal recipients with WP:Summary style.
- mid-August, 1934 → mid-August 1934
- from 1916–1924 → from 1916 to 1924
- from 1909–1933 → from 1909 to 1933
- occurred from 1959-April 30, 1975 → occurred from 1959 to April 30, 1975
Very nice overall. Reywas92Talk 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the notes quotes? If so they should be in quotations. For instance, I can't imagine you came up with "Stood on the gunwale on the Benicia's launch, lashed to the ridgerope and remained unflinchingly in this dangerous position and gave his soundings with coolness and accuracy under a heavy fire." yourself... (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks). The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Our article calls it the Andrews' Raid (note the apostrophe)
That's about half-done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Comments[reply]
|
- Comment Check the toolbox; there are a couple dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Spanish-American War" Needs an en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
- "Philippine-American War" Needs and en dash, not a hyphen. Multiple occurences of this.
- "While current regulations, (10 U.S.C. § 6241), beginning in 1918, explicitly state that recipients " Doesn't make sense; how can regulations "begin" to state something in a year?
- The Spanish–American War section does not mention the MOH awardees at all.
- In general, the undue weight given to the events over the recipients is an issue for most of the sections. I would expect only two or three sentences for each event, and a similar or greater amount of prose dedicated to the awardees per sections.
- Are all of those external links really necessary? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 12:45, 31 March 2010 [43].
List of NESIS storms
- Nominator(s): –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it fills a gap, gives orphaned storm articles a place to thrive, and is informative. I wrote it mostly from scratch, and believe it fulfills all the criteria. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 19:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I think, while the lead image is interesting, it's not clear to me how the NESIS value is derived still. Perhaps you can explain this more fully in the lead.
- I'd like more description of the algorithm because the image used seems quite complex and requires some level of knowledge of moderately complicated mathematical ideas.
- How does the numbering system work? Are 8 and 9 the wrong way round?
- Ref 4 is a footnote, not a reference.
- Aren't 23 & 24 really 23=?
- Same with 28 & 29. If not then a note as to how the fractions are dealt with would be useful.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I fixed many of them, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how to add more information. I'd have no idea how to add the mathematical algorithms and such. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert either but it's really important that the lead clearly and concisely explains how the values for these storms are calculated. Sorry if that's a pain, but I think it's essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue is that the method of calculation might differ from the original Northeast Snowstorms book to the current NCDC records. I'm not sure how to verify that (I'm not even sure it's accurate), but this is getting a bit difficult. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A little more history/details would be nice, such as in a section outside the lede and before the actual list. Was there ever a similar scale before that ranked nor'easters? When was the scale even created, and why? Is the scale used at all by the public, or even the private sector for that matter? You have the diagram on the top-right of the page, but it'd be nice seeing in the article how it's tabulated. My feeling is that the stubby Northeast Snowfall Impact Scale should be merged/redirected to the list, since you covered most of that content already. I just feel the current list is a bit lackluster, and maybe some of what I recommended could give it a nice touch. If I had to vote, I'd oppose per 3b, since I think those details are important. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the list not substantial enough to stand on its own? –Juliancolton | Talk 17:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I privately left you comments. I feel some basic info is needed, such as when the scale was invented, and why, who uses it (anyone other than NCDC?) and why. Regarding substantialness, I feel the current NECIS article is not substantial enough on its own, especially since this scale is so new, which is why I think the NECIS should be moved to the list article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 11:49, 31 March 2010 [44].
List of Gunsmoke television episodes
I am re-nominating this for featured list because Gunsmoke is a television classic and warrants a good episode list page. This article has had a peer review and a previous FLC listing. All comments for improvement were addressed. All that is needed now is some support. Thanks Jimknut (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
I supported this list before the re-insertion of Amazon.com as a reference. Since it is being used only to verify release dates in this case, I'm willing to overlook my personal concerns with its reliability. I see only two comments that would need to be addressed before I confirm my support:
Once those are fixed, I'll be glad to re-support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
- Comments I have a few issues that should be addressed before supporting.
- Could you state in the lead why the show was eventually cancelled?
- A statement has now been added.
- "According to Alan Wagner, who was the network's vice president at the time, "It's better to get rid of a program one year too soon than one year two late." Should it be "one year too late"? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops! This is what happens whecn your up
twotoo late editing Wikipedia pages! It's now fixed.
- Whoops! This is what happens whecn your up
- "According to Alan Wagner, who was the network's vice president at the time, "It's better to get rid of a program one year too soon than one year two late." Should it be "one year too late"? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A statement has now been added.
- Before each season, producer is followed by a colon (as well as notes), but starring is not. To remain consistent, it would be helpful to add colons after each of the "Starring" for all of the seasons.
- No, I disagree. I think "Producer" and "associate producer" warrant colons unless I change then to "Produced by" and "Associate produced by" (of which the latter sound tacky). "Starring James Arness ..." flows better without a colon. I could change this to "Stars:" or "Regular cast:" but I think it's fine the way it is.
- To be consistent with the formatting of the other lines before the tables, a colon makes more sense. It seems out of place and starting off with "starring" makes the line appear to be a sentence, when it is only a list of the cast members. I think "regular cast:" would work well or actually writing it as a sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I give in. It's now changed to "Regular cast:"
- To be consistent with the formatting of the other lines before the tables, a colon makes more sense. It seems out of place and starting off with "starring" makes the line appear to be a sentence, when it is only a list of the cast members. I think "regular cast:" would work well or actually writing it as a sentence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I disagree. I think "Producer" and "associate producer" warrant colons unless I change then to "Produced by" and "Associate produced by" (of which the latter sound tacky). "Starring James Arness ..." flows better without a colon. I could change this to "Stars:" or "Regular cast:" but I think it's fine the way it is.
- There seems to be a lot of overlinking. Could the directors and writers be linked to only once in each season?
- See resolved comments from the last FLC; these are not overlinked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5 summed it up right ... and I've gone over this linking routine numerous times.
- Sorry, I didn't view other reviewers' comments. The rationale in the guideline doesn't make sense to me, but I'm not going to fight it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KV5 summed it up right ... and I've gone over this linking routine numerous times.
- See resolved comments from the last FLC; these are not overlinked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are guidelines that state otherwise, consider renaming the section "home release" to "home media release". Also there should be a brief mention in the lead about the releases to better summarize the article.
- Now changed to "Home media release".
- Are there any relevant external links that can be included?
- Amazing but there doesn't seem to be any significant web site devoted to this epic TV series. I have, however, included a link to the web site of the Museum of Television Broadcasting, which seems to be a somewhat scholarly site.
- Could you state in the lead why the show was eventually cancelled?
These shouldn't be too hard to address. Good job on this list, it's great to see a FLC attempt for an older show instead of all the recent ones (where sources are must more abundant). If you have any questions or when you are finished, please let me know on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of the above issues I raised have been sufficiently addressed. Good work on the list! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). Overall, a very nice article. Just some nitpicks before I support (mostly prose-related).
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 3 April 2010 [45].
Paramore discography
I am nominating this for featured list because I spent a couple of months working on it and, based on previous nominations, I thought this article is ready to be promoted to a FL. Sources, lead and images are fine in my opinion and the peer review I resquested before this nomination is already archived. Decodet (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
---|
*Quick comment: The arrows in the box to the right of the lead don't link to the correct section. Mm40 (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good otherwise, I'll support once these issues are resolved. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Mm40 (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Not sure I'm keen on the inclusion of information that you cite with "couldn't be cited with a RS"... interested to see what others have to say.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:58, 6 April 2010 [48].
List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni
I would like to nominate this list of alumni for featured list review. It was written to follow the precedent of recent lists of alumni. It has has undergone a thorough (and helpful) peer review. Hopefully it is good enough for Featured List designation. GrapedApe (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice that alt text has been added, but right now it merely duplicates the image captions, which is not the purpose of alt text. Alt text describes only what you can see in the picture without external information (i.e. it must be verifiable), which means alt text such as "Andrew Wylie" is largely useless since nobody knows what Wylie looks like. Instead, describe what Wylie looks like; a common analogy to writing alt text is to pretend that you are describing the photo to someone over the phone. See the alt text at List of University of Central Florida alumni, a recently promoted Featured list, for an alumni list that has good alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I'm on it. --GrapedApe (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave it a try. Hope that works better.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Bencherlite
That will do for now. The list looks in generally good shape, but needs a fair amount of polishing. I'll return with more suggestions when you've responded to this batch. BencherliteTalk 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note to nominator Please do not strike reviewers' comments; the reviewers themselves decide when issues are resolved (I changed the strikes to indented and italicized "dones" where appropriate). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Took a brief look at the Athletics section, and am curious as to why Head Coach is capitalized three times (by my count). I don't believe it's a proper noun.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments from Bencherlite I have a number of minor points which I have put on the talk page of this FLC to avoid cluttering up the front page. BencherliteTalk 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These appear to have been addressed as well, for the most part. So, what's left?
- Some of the alt-text is still inadequate, even under the recently loosened guidance: "Caucasian female smiling at the camera", "Color photo of a Caucasian male", "Black and white photo of Caucasian male in a chair", "John Astin", "Photo of a bearded man" and I could go on. The alt text for the lead image basically restates the caption. Even though I'm not the world's greatest fan of WP:ALT, this isn't close enough to being adequate for me to be able to ignore it in good conscience while alt-text is still one of the FL criteria.
- Some of the references give the publisher as "W&J College", others as "Washington & Jefferson College". Any reason for the difference? - I changed them all to Washington & Jefferson College
- If the alt-text can be improved, I'd be prepared to support but not just yet. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever
half-bakedthe new standard is! BencherliteTalk 21:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as alt text is no longer part of the Featured List criteria. Of course, if that situation changes before this FLC ends, you'll need to comply with whatever
- Thanks for the help so far. I will get to the alt text in the next few days. --GrapedApe (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support prose – Read through the lead and the writing looks okay for the most part. The one part I wasn't crazy about was "with Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania being chartered in 1802 and Washington College being chartered in 1806." I've never been a fan of these "with + being..." type of sentences; perhaps "; Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania was chartered in 1802 and Washington College was chartered in 1806" could be considered? I also skimmed through the sources, and what I saw looked good as far as reliability goes; however, I didn't check the tables other than the athletics one before, so this shouldn't be considered a 100% support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Many ref's need attendance - this is the version with the specific numerical ref values I've noted above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great, good work. Jujutacular T · C 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ImGz (t/c) 12:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominations for removal
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating
- Notified: Parutakupiu
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
- Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
- None of the tables are accessible
- No alt text on any of the images
Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for the reasons outlined in the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Indian Premier League seasons and results
- Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [50], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:
- Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [51], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023.
Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament.
Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.- The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves
The tables themselves have multiple problems too:
- The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
- The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
- "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information
As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [52]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one more issue I've found: Player of the tournament column has flags without country names in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Also, there are players listed as Jamaica, Trinidad etc in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG (they compete(d) internationally for West Indies, not the constituent countries). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The main tables were once sourced, but a series of edits in 2021 by Rachit Methwani seemed to remove these sources for no clear reason. Unless someone adds them back, the list fails WP:FLCR #3b. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – per above, ping if someone changes anything. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - I made some flag changes, but this is incidental to the main issues as detailed above. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons
- Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
- 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
- 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
- 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
- 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
- 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.
The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Per nomination, ping if there are any changes. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - lack of suitable citations is my primary concern, but there are other issues too, as detailed in the nomination. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]