Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of deaths at the Berlin Wall/archive1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Violetriga (talk | contribs) |
PumpkinSky (talk | contribs) →List of deaths at the Berlin Wall: commetns |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
[[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] <sub><sup>[[user talk:violetriga|[talk]]]</sup></sub> 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
[[user:violetriga|violet/riga]] <sub><sup>[[user talk:violetriga|[talk]]]</sup></sub> 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
;Comments: |
|||
:Very interesting topic. Some observations... |
|||
*First para says 136 deaths. Second says 98. I immediately wonder about the other 38 but have to get well into the main section to figure it out. So I suggest a short clause or sentence in the lead about what's up with the other 38. |
|||
*I think event details does not need to be sortable, there's no standard schema to such a field. |
|||
*Consider putting footnotes in event details rather than by the name or in a separate column. You may want to see what others think of this. |
|||
*What exactly does "no intention" mean? Seems to mean different things, such as accident, wandering too close to the Wall, etc. Perhaps make this more specific to the incident. |
|||
*Herbert Mende died SIX YEARS after being shot and the cause was being shot? |
|||
*Refs are inconsistent. Some have access dates, some don't (refs 1 and 5 for example). All web refs should have access dates. |
|||
*Ref 21 seems to be a book. Pages used should be listed. |
|||
:[[User:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">Pumpkin</font><font color="darkblue">Sky</font>]] [[User talk:PumpkinSky|<font color="darkorange">talk</font>]] 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:23, 31 August 2011
List of deaths at the Berlin Wall
List of deaths at the Berlin Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): violet/riga [talk] 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
A recently created article but I believe it now covers the topic in sufficient depth to meet FL criteria. I can't see any significant gaps in the content.
Regarding the criteria:
- Prose: Written by two people and copy-edited by others, I believe it to be of a high enough standard.
- Lead: I think that the lead covers the topic well without going into too much detail.
- Comprehensiveness: The list is fixed at 136 entries and this covers them all.
- Structure: The table is sortable on six of the seven columns.
- Style:
- It looks quite nice and the charts give a good representation of the information. Only list items with articles are linked.
- Lots of appropriate images throughout the text, all of which should have decent captions. The images used within the list are the only free ones that I know to be available; an agreement with the ZZF to use their images would be nice but difficult to obtain.
- Stability: No edit wars; the content is not likely to change significantly.
violet/riga [talk] 22:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Very interesting topic. Some observations...
- First para says 136 deaths. Second says 98. I immediately wonder about the other 38 but have to get well into the main section to figure it out. So I suggest a short clause or sentence in the lead about what's up with the other 38.
- I think event details does not need to be sortable, there's no standard schema to such a field.
- Consider putting footnotes in event details rather than by the name or in a separate column. You may want to see what others think of this.
- What exactly does "no intention" mean? Seems to mean different things, such as accident, wandering too close to the Wall, etc. Perhaps make this more specific to the incident.
- Herbert Mende died SIX YEARS after being shot and the cause was being shot?
- Refs are inconsistent. Some have access dates, some don't (refs 1 and 5 for example). All web refs should have access dates.
- Ref 21 seems to be a book. Pages used should be listed.
- PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)