Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2010
- 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, 31 August 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s):Geraldk, Courcelles 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list was left a bit in the wind after Geraldk left Wikipedia last November. I've given it a copy-edit, added some references, and made a few fixes, but this is still 85% his work. Per standard convention, the winners of the demonstration sports are not included. I hope you enjoy this trip back to the olden days of the Winter Olympics as the summer's heat beats down on us in the Northern Hemisphere. Courcelles 18:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Except for those of us who just get rained upon.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- (I'll trade the 39 C and 80% humidity for some of your rain... Courcelles 18:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)) [reply]
- Support - Can't find anything wrong with it at first glance. --Iuneof theEast 19:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments:
|
Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I've had a good look and the only thing I can see is in the lead, "from February 4 through February 15, 1932", should that not be "through to February 15"? - JuneGloom07 Talk? 18:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needed some alteration, you're right, but when you add the "to" the "through" becomes a surplus word. Courcelles 18:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this and the medal table are very short lists, I would strongly suggest to merge the two. Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the medal table is produced fully in 1932 Winter Olympics already. If we want to get rid of 1932 Winter Olympics medal table simply redirecting it back to its parent would seem more logical than duplicating the information from the main article on the Games here. (I agree the medal table needs to be merged, I just disagree that this is the proper target.) Courcelles 08:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of lists of winners that have at the end a "by country" table. For example List_of_European_Cup_and_UEFA_Champions_League_winners is somewhat similar. Having something similar here should work well, even if the information is duplicated in the main article. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After some digging, it appears that merging the early/small medal tables is an idea that has been rather a battleground in the past. I've appended the table to this list, but redirecting/merging the actual medal table article is a battle I'd rather not start. Courcelles 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of lists of winners that have at the end a "by country" table. For example List_of_European_Cup_and_UEFA_Champions_League_winners is somewhat similar. Having something similar here should work well, even if the information is duplicated in the main article. Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does the German hockey team have less members? Also, do hockey coaches receive medals? Nergaal (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coaches never receive medals. As to the German team, I wish I knew. Page 228 of the official report gives the number; 49 participants, and then lists them. 14 each for Canada and the U.S, 11 for 4th-place Poland, and 10 for Germany. The situation where team sports carried various size rosters isn't a terribly unusual situation in the early Olympics. Courcelles 23:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to have a note explaining that "until 19xx when IOC decided to regulate the number of team members to 1x,[citation needed] the size of the teams varied". Also, one final question: has there been a discussion about having or not multiple sections with one-entry tables? Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that even as recently as 2006, the gold and silver medal-winning teams had one fewer member than the bronze winners. It looks for all the world like Germany-who was represented by a club team- simply brought fewer people than they were allowed. Not terribly surprising given the difficulty in crossing the Atlantic in 1932. As to your question, are you suggesting that there shouldn't be separate headers for each sport? That would damage the usability of teh table, and require a fifth field, making a group of wide tables even wider. Courcelles 19:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I know it would be a bit weird. But the one-entry-in-one-table-in-a-section is a bit reminiscent of the one-sentence paragraphs, which are frowned upon at FACs. In the future, try to find a solution to this. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that even as recently as 2006, the gold and silver medal-winning teams had one fewer member than the bronze winners. It looks for all the world like Germany-who was represented by a club team- simply brought fewer people than they were allowed. Not terribly surprising given the difficulty in crossing the Atlantic in 1932. As to your question, are you suggesting that there shouldn't be separate headers for each sport? That would damage the usability of teh table, and require a fifth field, making a group of wide tables even wider. Courcelles 19:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as all the issues I had were solved. Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice to have a note explaining that "until 19xx when IOC decided to regulate the number of team members to 1x,[citation needed] the size of the teams varied". Also, one final question: has there been a discussion about having or not multiple sections with one-entry tables? Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coaches never receive medals. As to the German team, I wish I knew. Page 228 of the official report gives the number; 49 participants, and then lists them. 14 each for Canada and the U.S, 11 for 4th-place Poland, and 10 for Germany. The situation where team sports carried various size rosters isn't a terribly unusual situation in the early Olympics. Courcelles 23:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks fine to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 29 August 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 22:09, 31 August 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished copy-editing the article. I fixed everything mentioned on the previous FLC nom. Happy to be back on Wikipedia again. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - weak support - most everything has been addressed, but I think the first column is misleading, despite its use in other lists.
- No. of head coaches is a bit of a strange column header. I think it would just be better to have a sentence in the lead saying "The BC lions have had x number of coaches, with y having two stints with the team" or however to get the information in there. As the heading is right now, the column doesn't denote the "number of head coaches" its the "xth unique head coach" and I think it could just be excluded, and put "Term" as the first column.
- If you look at other "List of (team) head coaches/managers" lists, they also use the same column format. The sentences you suggested are good, but I think the sentences currently used are fine as they are. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of "statistics are correct through the end of the 2009 season", how about "updated" or "current".
- Changed to "current". --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thus, any coach who have two or more separate terms as head coach is only counted once." - grammar issue there.
- Changed have to has. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. of head coaches is a bit of a strange column header. I think it would just be better to have a sentence in the lead saying "The BC lions have had x number of coaches, with y having two stints with the team" or however to get the information in there. As the heading is right now, the column doesn't denote the "number of head coaches" its the "xth unique head coach" and I think it could just be excluded, and put "Term" as the first column.
- Looks good other than these issues, and some more CFL featured content would be great. Canada Hky (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not interested in making the other CFL head coaches lists anymore. If you would like to make them, then go for it. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Goodraise 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The biggest shortcoming I see with the list is its prose. It's grammatically correct and makes sense even to readers unfamiliar with the subject, but it's just not engaging. Some passages read like "Mike did this. He did that. Mike also did something else." Lots of short statements with no flow. I realize that the kind of information dealt with in the article makes writing brilliant prose fairly difficult, but not impossible. Anyway, I'm in weak support for now. Goodraise 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Weak support. Well made list. If I find the time and motivation to tweak the prose some more, I might switch to full support. No promises though.Goodraise 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- After Diannaa's copy editing, I see no more reason not to give this nomination my full support. Goodraise 19:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Courcelles 15:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Good work as always; thanks, Diannaa. Support Courcelles 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have completed the copy edit and hope it is now up to FA standards. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:23, 29 August 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 10:51, 26 August 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated, including Best: Alternative Music Album, Dance Recording, Female Rock Vocal Performance, Male Rock Vocal Performance, Metal Performance, and Traditional Pop Vocal Album. I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but many of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support already, so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks, as always, to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments - you know what you're doing!
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment: shouldn't the countries and bands/singers (e.g. Elvis Costello, U2, DMB, etc.) be wikilinked only on their first mention? Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. According to the "Repeated links" section of the Manuel of Style, links should be repeated in a table (where each row stands alone). --Another Believer (Talk) 15:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, okay. Yvesnimmo (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Courcelles 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) As usual, not much to quibble about here:
Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Well made list. Though that one note seems somewhat superfluous. Goodraise 20:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Everything looks fine to me. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 25 August 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 21:48, 24 August 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (see profile). Here is one more! Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Metallica, which were expected to win...." reads extremely strangely to me. Over here in the UK, where band names are treated as plural nouns, we'd say "Metallica, who were expected....." In the States I believe the correct form is to regard band names as singular nouns, so I guess you'd say "Metallica, which was expected....." The current wording seems to me to be a hybrid of both and not correct in either version of the language...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I think "who were" sounds best. I corrected the lead. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support can't see any other issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments I'm going to scratch the barrel and nitpick, because I've cast one too many !votes lately.
Prose looks good, clean up the referencing and I'll gladly support. Courcelles 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Only minor issue I see is a tense conflict between singular and plural: there's a "were" for Metallica and a "was" for Living Colour.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I added "The band" in front of Living Colour, making the subject singular (so "was" is appropriate). Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:14, 22 August 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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [5].
- Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FLC requirements. The list is complete and covers not only the current list, but past list members and previous lists. If adjustments are needed in structure or appearance, I will gladly make them. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks pretty good, though the Alt text needs sorting though. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ah ok, well then I have no problems with the list if thats the case, I'll throw in my support. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw, I will add alt text once the community can define exactly what alt text should include. If I remember correctly, this was the reason why alt text was removed from FAC and FLC requirements. I think alt text is a good thing, but it takes time to think about and write, and I don't want to have to do it twice for every article I write. Anyway, thanks for your review and your support! – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ah ok, well then I have no problems with the list if thats the case, I'll throw in my support. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that alt text is no longer part of the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments now then, this is my kind of bag.
More soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support enjoyable read. Reg. title, if the common name is used, I'm quite satisfied. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the former list members should also have the information given for the current list members (distribution, threats, perhaps reason they're no longer on the list). Ucucha 07:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice, but the current and previous reports don't summarize or consistently provide that information. The current report offers this info in a table while the others do not. Although I could extract a list of "threats" from the text for the past two years, the previous reports are no longer accessible (from what I can tell) and were much shorter. (I think the first report was 1 page long, the next only a few pages more.) Also, there has not always been a full explanation of why each species was taken off the list. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your recommendation, I have expanded the table for the former list members. At your convenience, please let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice, but the current and previous reports don't summarize or consistently provide that information. The current report offers this info in a table while the others do not. Although I could extract a list of "threats" from the text for the past two years, the previous reports are no longer accessible (from what I can tell) and were much shorter. (I think the first report was 1 page long, the next only a few pages more.) Also, there has not always been a full explanation of why each species was taken off the list. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I did some work on the taxonomy of the old lists and other aspects of the list, and I think it now covers the subject comprehensively. Ucucha 08:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and well sourced list. Although the title gave me a pause when I read it the first time—I was thinking about a different kind of primates at that time. I have one question though. Among threats to Gray-headed Lemur are mentioned cyclones. Why are they so dangerous to this species? Ruslik_Zero 17:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and support. The short answer is that their limited range is frequently damaged by cyclones on a yearly basis. Since it's a fruit-eater, it can be hard-hit when fruit trees are damaged a fail to produce fruit. Let me check the source when I get home, and if it explicitly states this, then I will try to clarify briefly in the table. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was able to download the document at work, and it just noted that a cyclone in 1997 cut the population in half, but did not give details. But I do know from other sources that damage to food sources is a severe threats to many eastern rainfoest lemur populations. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and support. The short answer is that their limited range is frequently damaged by cyclones on a yearly basis. Since it's a fruit-eater, it can be hard-hit when fruit trees are damaged a fail to produce fruit. Let me check the source when I get home, and if it explicitly states this, then I will try to clarify briefly in the table. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well written and well presented article. I was wondering about the lead, which generally sums up the article and doesn't contain information that isn't covered in the rest of the article. This means references are generally avoided in the lead as they come after in the main text (something I know you're already aware of). Is this different in list-class articles? If not there should be more about the inception of this list in a separate section. Jack (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. I haven't written for FLC in a while, and I was going on off an older FL of mine, List of lemur species. If it needs to be shuffled somehow, just let me know. But given that I've already got a few supports so far and no one has said anything about it yet, I'm not sure if that's a requirement. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments Great list, two minor stylistic quibbles, but otherwise nothing wrong I'm seeing.
Courcelles 07:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. Courcelles 11:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
but why Sunda Loris & Eastern Black Crested Gibbon don't have pictures? (there are pictures at the respective articles)--Egmontaz♤ talk 15:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The pictures do not specify which subspecies is shown, and given that these animals belong to specific subspecies, I don't want the pictures to be misleading. Thanks for the review and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- fair enough, thank you for answering. --Egmontaz♤ talk 09:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The pictures do not specify which subspecies is shown, and given that these animals belong to specific subspecies, I don't want the pictures to be misleading. Thanks for the review and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:14, 23 August 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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still have 1988 Winter Olympics medal table nomination undergoing but with 4 supporting users and another one's comments addressed, so I hope you don't mind if I open a new nomination procedure for a similar type of list. Thanks in advance for all comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets criteria. Quick feedback on the image! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 11:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 21:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
: what makes Sports-Reference.com a respectable sources?
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Good work. Courcelles 02:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport –"she came close to win a third in the giant slalom". "win" → "winning", I believe.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Corrected. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well made list. Goodraise 20:55, 22 August 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 16:33, 24 August 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list as a result of this list being requested. Naturally, this ended up being one of the largest lists; I don't think any other franchise we've written about yet has 66 draft picks. You would think a franchise with this many titles would have more recognizable names, but it happens. Anyway, here's the next one in the draft pick collection. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the pictures are of poor quality, including the lead one. Are there no better ones available? If not, wouldn't it be better to use a higher-quality lead picture and leave some of the poorer ones further down? Ucucha 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could replace a couple and move some around, i just didn't want the pictures to be full of just players from the past ten years. I can probably move the Brian Jordan pick up as the lead image since he had a strong career as well and the pic is better. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I swapped a couple, including the lead. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could replace a couple and move some around, i just didn't want the pictures to be full of just players from the past ten years. I can probably move the Brian Jordan pick up as the lead image since he had a strong career as well and the pic is better. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Lead isn't the best in the world, being a summary of the stats table. Would like some subjective opinions on who of the drafts had the greatest career, failed miserably, etc. A bit more flavour. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I changed UCLA to University of California, Los Angeles due to my general dislike of acronyms in an article that doesn't expand them. (In the interest of full disclosure, I have made several edits to this article in the past, but still consider myself impartial in evaluating it.) Courcelles 23:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment - "Seven outfielders, six shortstops, six third basemen, six first basemen, four catchers, and one second basemen were also taken. The team also drafted one player, Leron Lee (1966), who played as an infielder." - The word "also" was used in consecutive sentences. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from KV5
As far as I'm aware, general practice is still to redlink young players who are still in baseball (not retired) at the bottom of these lists so that if articles are created for them in the future, they will be properly linked here. — KV5 • Talk • 14:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- It was like that originally but was changed, not sure why. Redlinks put back up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well done. — KV5 • Talk • 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was like that originally but was changed, not sure why. Redlinks put back up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. The only thing I would tweak would be "Two of the Cardinals draft picks...". The team name could possibly use an apostrophe at the end, although I'm not 100% sure it's needed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. I could find no problems. Because I live in the St. Louis area and I am a slightly disinterested Cardinal's fan, I gave this list an extra critical review because of the potential of conflict of interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:36, 22 August 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 16:22, 24 August 2010 [9].
- Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list. The only other FL city lists are Tennesse and Arizona. I've added the etymology column used in county lists such as Utah's. Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Does "concentrated along" (last paragraph of lead) mean "concentrated in"? Ucucha 18:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added wikilink to Wasatch Front. The use of "along" or "in" depends on what is your definition of Wasatch Front. It can mean the western side of the Wasatch mountains, so "along" would be correct. It can also mean the general area including the valleys and mountains, so "in" would be correct. Common verbiage in Utah is to say "along" no matter what definition of Wasatch Front you use. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't say concentrated along the Wasatch Front... it says concentrated along four counties, in which case the proper phrase should be 'concentrated in'. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct and I'm wrong. Changed to "in". Bgwhite (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't say concentrated along the Wasatch Front... it says concentrated along four counties, in which case the proper phrase should be 'concentrated in'. --Golbez (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added wikilink to Wasatch Front. The use of "along" or "in" depends on what is your definition of Wasatch Front. It can mean the western side of the Wasatch mountains, so "along" would be correct. It can also mean the general area including the valleys and mountains, so "in" would be correct. Common verbiage in Utah is to say "along" no matter what definition of Wasatch Front you use. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support Looks good. Jujutacular talk 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Page moved from "List of cities in Utah" to "List of cities and towns in Utah" per discussion above and request here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
--Golbez (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- As other city pages used incorporated, I was originally going to use it. However, it was slow going to find info. I was getting information on about 1/4 of the cities. I called three cities to find info and they said they had the year settled on their letterhead, but they would have to ask somebody on when the city was incorporated... I gave up and just used settled. BTW... Utah is not high :) BYU was just named the most stone-cold sober school for 13th year running. However, Utah leads the nation in per capita use of prescription drugs, especially anti-depression drugs. (Insert jokes here). Bgwhite (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, my school (GWU) was named, I think, the #2 party school in the country by Playboy when I was there in the 90s. It thoroughly confused us. ;) Hrm. The incorporated thing nags at me, but if there is no easy sourcing for that then I'm fine with letting that slide... for now. ;) Keep up and you might find some source at some point, but as the list is it's good enough. :) Support. Though, one last comment: Dabomb suggested ^, #, and *, and I personally think * is a much better 'first indicator' than the others, and suggest you replace # with * in the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsA few comments:
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
**Initial colonization along the Wasatch Front was mostly made by individuals with no direct involvement of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Does this mean that along the Wasatch Front Utah was colonized by non-Mormons?
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Enjoying the continuing series of Utah lists...
|
- On a side note, I've noticed I only get about 1/2 of the updates in my watchlist from the towns in Utah article and other FLC articles I've nominated. I didn't get yours or Ruslik0's latest comments in my watchlist. Is this just me or a common problem? Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I experienced the same problem. Granted, my watchlist is very busy right now, but I just double-checked and did not see your response at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Egads, I'd hate to see your watchlist. You probably have it set up like a stock ticker, updated pages just scrolling by... flc cities up 50 bytes leeds fc down 674 bytes.... Bgwhite (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I use Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:Featured lists/Candidate list as my "FLC watchlist". If I didn't, I probably would give up on my watchlist altogether :) Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Egads, I'd hate to see your watchlist. You probably have it set up like a stock ticker, updated pages just scrolling by... flc cities up 50 bytes leeds fc down 674 bytes.... Bgwhite (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I experienced the same problem. Granted, my watchlist is very busy right now, but I just double-checked and did not see your response at all. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good job - the list is comprehensive from Springdale and Hurricane to Moab and Salt Lake City...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It appears to meet all FL criteria. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:49, 22 August 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 14:32, 21 August 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone through PR. It has just been merged with List of FC Barcelona honours (that seemed to be the consensus), which was also through PR. It's based on the other FL stats-pages. Comments are welcome! Sandman888 (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure: I have informed all non-usual reviewers of the previous article I've had here, to garnish reviews.
- Comment—a dab link to River Plate; no dead external links. Ucucha 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport—The list is logical and understandable. It appears to be properly cited. My only concern is that the list may not be of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for the support. Reg. "general interest", there exist a long-established consensus on WP:FOOTY that these list are appropiate. It is also used in the existing featured topics on football.Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Sandman, there is definitely consensus for doing it in this way. As a side note, if the statistics of one of the biggest sports clubs in the world isn't general interest, then I've wasted a heck of a lot of time on various Hertfordshire, Watford and Seattle Sounders lists! --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed my vote from "Weak Support" to "Support". I still have the concern whether this list is of general interest, but that probably says more about my general lack of interest in sports, than on whether the list is of general interest. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Sandman, there is definitely consensus for doing it in this way. As a side note, if the statistics of one of the biggest sports clubs in the world isn't general interest, then I've wasted a heck of a lot of time on various Hertfordshire, Watford and Seattle Sounders lists! --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support. Reg. "general interest", there exist a long-established consensus on WP:FOOTY that these list are appropiate. It is also used in the existing featured topics on football.Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose (and yes, it's good to see you back)
That's a start, i.e. the lead done. More to come when you've resolved this. Oh, check for hyphens (I've seen a few) instead of en-dashes... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Enough for now, I'll get onto the statistics once you deal with these comments. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment What makes The-Sports.org and Soccerlens.com reliable sources? All other refs look good, and nice touch in #43. Not sure why that isn't more commonplace. --WFC-- 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with LFP and NY Times. Thanks! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments : Been trying to find enough time to give this a proper review but it's not going to happen, sorry, so a few quick comments only. The arbitrary nature of the content of records and statistics lists makes them difficult to review quickly
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Can you be consistent about closing year format in seasons. e.g. in La Liga winners, you use a full closing year 1928-1929, whereas in runners-up, you use only the last two digits 1929-30. Either is allowed, per MOS:NUM#Years, but just the last two digits is more generally used with football seasons.
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- In the record scores and wins part, there's an awful lot of best wins and winning streaks but not much worst losses and losing streaks
- There's also a list of trophies won, but not of how many not-won. :)
- I think that longest losing streaks should be provided alongside longest winning streaks, and that longest run without winning should be provided alongside the longest undefeated streaks. This will add context to the achievements, and in nearly all cases. For instance, your Longest unbeaten run at home in League matches is 67 games. Admittedly I'm guessing, but I imagine that the longest winless run at the Nou Camp in La Liga is closer to 6 or 7 games. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- longest winless run at Nou Camp is 5 in la liga. longest non-winning away-run 10. both added :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm too busy to give this FLC any more time. It's concerning that I'm still finding tables like the one mentioned above that are basically unsourced. Again, apologies for not being able to complete the job I started. Struway2 (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Dabomb asked me to return, so I have.[reply]
- Again I'm sorry, I've should have written I was on it. Thanks for the review so far though! Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the losing streaks go?
- It can be included depending upon the answer to below. I'm not sure whether this is against or within wikipedia policy. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please restore the reference to FC Barcelona's records page to the top of the Team records section. That source is better than none, and some of them still have none. It'd be easy to do if there were any prose in the section. Perhaps a sentence saying "FC Barcelona's team records include the following:" (insert reference here) and hope it really does cover the unsourced ones...
- Hmm this touches on a delicate subject. Is it reasonable to back up a claim with a finite number of sources? I could of course cite all of the other seasons to prove that the 2002-03 season is the season with lowest point-tally, with 3 points for a win. Wikipedia policy demands verifiability, and it is possible to verify the claim, although its extensive. So is a qoute to the season enough? Should I also note a "access other seasons via the search button" ? Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has the All-time most appearances table ever had a source for those being the all-time most appearances? If you can't find a better one, use http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/segarra.html
- used Segarra. I know there exists a better one. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise the All-time overall scorers? neither of the cited sources above that table verify it. Try http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/club/historia/jugadors_de_llegenda/escola.html . It says Escola was 5th all-time, so if the other four have more goals, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume those are the top five
- Found better source. Even included the original top-scorers breakdown now. Much better. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did the losing streaks go?
- Neutral
leaning to Weak support.I haven't given this list a full review. It would take too long, given that AFAIK there's no established consensus as to what should be included, and this list doesn't follow the structure of the previously-featured (English club) lists, where I'm well acquainted with what sources exist. It's much better sourced than it was when first reviewed, but even today on my third (fourth?) visit I'm still finding unsourced tables (see above). MoS is fine, structure's adequate. Still bothers me that for a club the size of Barcelona there's apparently no accessible book source for statistical stuff. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm sorry there isn't a book on the subject, but I can't find any. I'll be happy to use it if it exists. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalWeak support You've had two fantastic reviewers above me, so I'll defer to their judgement on the prose.I have a pretty minor concern over whether the list is complete, butI am happy that the information is accurate, reliably sourced, well structured and appropriately illustrated. --WFC-- 17:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to weak support based on Struway's final comments. I do differ with Stru on one point though: I don't think the lack of consensus on football lists in general should be held against this one. Especially given that Sandman has gone to quite extraordinary lengths to try and get consensus over a period of months. --WFC-- 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, I didn't hold lack of consensus against the list. I cited lack of consensus about what should be included, which meant I didn't know what I should be looking for, as one reason why it would take too long to give it a thorough review. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this kind of article should only be applied to the greatest 10 or so greatest clubs in the world in any given sport. Barcelona is indeed one of them, this could be a good "bet". I vote for promotion. Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Congratulations for the good job done. I had a look and the article seems properly structured and cited.--Jordiferrer (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and copyedits, much appreciated. Looks like I'll soon be done with this process, only one list left :) Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 20:49, 17 August 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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got two open nominations, but each has attracted some support, and I'm a secondary or tertiary nominator on both of them. Go back a ways and there are some fairly good players on the list, even if the more recent names are a little lacking in star power. A gold glove winner, All-Stars, a rookie of the year, and even an Olympic medallist, they've covered all the bases. I hope you enjoy, and don't pick me off for making bad puns! Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
In the caption, Rockies should have an apostrophe immediately following.- Done. Courcelles
Don't think Teams in "All-Star Teams" should be capitalized.- Wasn't sure when I wrote it, agree, odds are you're right. Courcelles
Commas before and after Casey Weathers?- Reordered the clauses in that sentence, and added some commas Courcelles
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Courcelles 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments
--K. Annoyomous (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment Support
In this case, I am pretty sure Baseball Reference is wrong, and Jeff Francis was drafted out of British Columbia (UBC) and not Alberta (U of Lethbridge). Its (UBC) what his MLB.com profile lists as well.Canada Hky (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're right... Changed in the table, and handled the disagreement with a footnote. Also sent an e-mail to Baseball Reference, so hopefully the note can go away before too long. Courcelles 17:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
"Since the franchise was established as an expansion team in 1992" - comma after"in which the Rockies filled their roster" - should probably be through which"one player at each of catcher, first baseman, and third baseman." - awkward wording, perhaps one player each at catcher, first base, and third base."The Rockies' 2002 selection Jeff Francis is the only selection" - I would put "Jeff Francis" in parentheses (or some other kind of set-off, it's wrong as is), and re-word to avoid the repetition of "selection... selection".As far as I'm aware, general practice is still to redlink young players who are still in baseball (not retired) at the bottom of these lists so that if articles are created for them in the future, they will be properly linked here.
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 14:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken care of all of these, thanks. Courcelles 20:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — KV5 • Talk • 12:08, 19 August 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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [12].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a sister list to the recently promoted FL Historic Chapels Trust. Its format is the same, and the text has been copyedited. It is a comprehensive list of all the churches in England and Wales conserved by the charity called the Friends of Friendless Churches. There is an article for every church on the list. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Support nomination for Featured list. I started this as a humble stub some time ago so have a vested interest. However, it has been greatly expanded into an excellent quality encyclopaedic article. It is easy to read, it is comprehensive in content, it has not been subject to any edit wars or dissent and it provides the reader with both an accurate and sufficient summary and a detailed tabulation or churches owned by the charity. Velela Velela Talk 12:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — While this is a fantastic and informative list, I do think the lead should be expanded a bit more to summarize all sections of the article. See the Manual of style (lead section) for suggestions.--Another Believer (Talk) 15:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. I completely agree. After I submitted it, another editor divided it into sections with titles. As this is a list rather than an article, IMO this is not appropriate. I have therefore reverted it to the format in which it was submitted. This is the format used for previous FLs that have been promoted, and I submit that it is appropriate for this list. (I note that you also use this format in (at least one of) the FLs you have submitted). Thanks for the comment. I did not revert immediately because I wanted to receive feedback from other reviewers first. I think we are in agreement. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved. Therefore, strike own comment. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Response. Thanks for the helpful review. I hope I have dealt with the points raised. If not, further comments welcomed.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support a fine work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support That they seem to contradict themselves presents a conundrum, but you've handled it well. Courcelles 02:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I shall be away from tomorrow for a week and may not be able to get to a computer to deal with any further comments until I return.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support off you go. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made two minor changes (an arguably missing word and a stray fragment of publisher info); that's all that was needed. I've run all the toolbox checks, spot-checked some of the refs, checked that all the coordinates are accurate, checked the wikilinks and so on; everything is in order. Pleased to offer my support accordingly ... now for the Churches Conservation Trust?!... (I'll help with southern England!) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:15, 17 August 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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): Yueof theNorth 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC) and Jason Rees[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it meets FLC standards. This article is written to address comments left at the featured list review for Timeline of the 2003-04 South Pacific cyclone season. Yueof theNorth 00:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looking good; all minor problems addressed. Ucucha 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Some more things:[reply]
Both warning centers designated tropical cyclones with a number and a P suffix with numbers assigned in order to tropical cyclones developing within the whole of the Southern Hemisphere.
- I changed it to make it clearer which warning centers designated storms with a "P".
- I'm sorry I didn't write a proper comment on the sentence; my problem was actually that there's a verb missing ("in order to tropical cyclones").
- Changed to say the assigned in numerical order. --Yueof theNorth 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification; I hadn't realized it should be read that way. Ucucha 15:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to say the assigned in numerical order. --Yueof theNorth 15:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry I didn't write a proper comment on the sentence; my problem was actually that there's a verb missing ("in order to tropical cyclones").
Why is what looks like the alt text for the track map of Joy in a ref?
- Changed and moved all information about tracks into alt text
- In the timeline, why are those exclamation marks and other pieces of punctuation there before the storm names? Also, some of the colors hardly stand out from the background.
- The punctuation marks came up in a previous FLC (Timeline of the 2007-08 South Pacific cyclone season [14]) as to distinguish storms for people who are color-blind or cannot see the difference between colors easily.
- Could you tell me which color(s) are hard to see on the screen as on my computer, it shows up fine
- Thanks for the explanation. Might it be better to use superscript numbers for that (e.g., 1 for cat. 1, and perhaps 0 for tropical depression)? That would make for a more intuitive scheme. The poorly visible colours are for categories 2 and 3, but I was probably just looking at my screen at a weird angle—it's fine now that I'm looking at it another way. It might also be a good idea to use two colors for tropical depression and cat. 1 that differ a little more—they're hardly distinguishable now. Ucucha 15:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 06:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea with the Superscript numbers, Ive changed the tropical depression colour to the one used for Tropical disturbances in later timelines.Jason Rees (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-script does not work in timelines so I added in numbers in paranthesis.
- Thanks. The colors for TD and 1 are still nearly the same. The parentheses are a good fix; the only problem is that the right parenthesis for 4 is cut off. Ucucha 15:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive extended the width out to accommodate the bracket for C4- as for the colours being nearly the same - they look completely different to me as ones a dark blue and ones an aqua. Other than changing the colour between the one used for Depression and Disturbance which i have done we would need a consensus from the wikiproject to change the colours as their the same colours used throughout the project.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough; changed to support. Ucucha 18:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive extended the width out to accommodate the bracket for C4- as for the colours being nearly the same - they look completely different to me as ones a dark blue and ones an aqua. Other than changing the colour between the one used for Depression and Disturbance which i have done we would need a consensus from the wikiproject to change the colours as their the same colours used throughout the project.Jason Rees (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The colors for TD and 1 are still nearly the same. The parentheses are a good fix; the only problem is that the right parenthesis for 4 is cut off. Ucucha 15:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super-script does not work in timelines so I added in numbers in paranthesis.
- Interesting idea with the Superscript numbers, Ive changed the tropical depression colour to the one used for Tropical disturbances in later timelines.Jason Rees (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport— The track maps are very dark and difficult to read. Even the larger images in Wiki Commons are extremely dark. Can you possibly provide images with more contrast between the tracks and the background? Also, it is not clear on first glance what land mass is being shown. Although this is not a fatal flaw for the list, it is distracting. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the track maps for the individual storms, I removed the extratropical points which will make it clearer. I unfortunately cannot do anything about the darkness of the image as it is the image used in the track map generator; any change to the image will require the uninstallation and reinstallation of the program. --Yueof theNorth 16:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The track images are now much easier to read. This was my only problem with the list. I've change "Comment" to "Support". --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Courcelles 23:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can find nothing wrong with this. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Afro. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 10:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
"whilst the NWOC issued unofficial warnings...". "whilst" → "while"."Both the JTWC and NMOC designated...". Hyphen needed after NMOC.- One note on this: the hyphen should be unspaced. I'll do this to save time, but please remember for next time. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 should have an indication that the link is in PDF format. There's a format= parameter in the cite templates that handles this nicely.
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 14 August 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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Dan Dassow (talk), JuneGloom07 Talk? , Courcelles (talk)
We are nominating List of accolades received by Up in the Air for featured list because it meets the six criteria for a featured list: prose, comprehensiveness, structure, style and stability. The article is well written and features professional standards of writing. The lead provides a brief description of Up in the Air (film), the venues in which it was shown and the nominations and awards which it has received. The lead clearly defines the scope and inclusion criteria. The article comprehensively addresses all of the nominations and awards that Up in the Air received with proper citation. The length of the list is appropriate for the subject, provides suitable supplementary information to the main article and does not duplicate information. The list is easy to navigate through and includes helpful section headings. The list fully complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color. There are no red-linked items. The picture of Vera Farmiga on the red carpet at the 82nd Academy Awards is freely licensed and helps to illustrate the article. The article is stable. The content has not changed significantly during the last few weeks. Dan Dassow (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.stlfilmcritics.com/awards.html is dead. Ucucha 05:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the dead link which is a citation for the St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association. I will replace the citation when I find one that is suitable. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, simple typo. They use a .org website, and somehow it got put in as a .com. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just resolved two re-directed links by replacing them with the equivalent non-redirecting links for citations. --Dan Dassow (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, simple typo. They use a .org website, and somehow it got put in as a .com. Courcelles (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing this out. I've removed the dead link which is a citation for the St. Louis Gateway Film Critics Association. I will replace the citation when I find one that is suitable. --Dan Dassow (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (creator of list) List meets all criteria and has been polished by the editors nominating this list. Opening gives a thorough summary of the film's awards season. Everything is checked and very well referenced. I cannot find anything to nitpick about. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure if other film accolades articles feature this spacing issue, but the dates column is compressed strangely if the browser window is compressed horizontally. (Just a minor observation.) — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, despite my best efforts, I was unable to duplicate the problem you documented. I tried both IE and Firefox. Which browser did you use? Thank you for your support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using Google Chrome. I meant to say that the dates are expanded, not compressed. My date format is month day, year (like "March 7, 2010"). It is honestly not a big deal though, and certainly not a problem at all in its current state. Cheers. — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy, despite my best efforts, I was unable to duplicate the problem you documented. I tried both IE and Firefox. Which browser did you use? Thank you for your support. --Dan Dassow (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure if other film accolades articles feature this spacing issue, but the dates column is compressed strangely if the browser window is compressed horizontally. (Just a minor observation.) — Andy W. (talk/contrb.) 04:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - it seems to meet all the required criteria. Afro (Say Something Funny) - Afkatk 19:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no complaints here. It meets the required criteria from what I can see. Great work. Mike Allen 05:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Checklinks: List of accolades received by Up in the Air is incorrectly showing references 33, 43, 53, 58, 59 as dead links. These are all from altfg.com. Checklinks had shown these as active links in the past. I just checked these links manually and they loaded properly. Are there known issues with checklinks pinging a web server too quickly and getting spurious results? --Dan Dassow (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is commendable! "Lead" section looks like a good overview of the awards, and the list looks comprehensive and well-referenced. I have a couple of suggestions. First, rename "Awards and nominations" to "Accolades" because film circles are more about "honors" than any kind of tangible award given to someone. "Accolades" was meant to encompass that kind of recognition. Secondly, we do not need the color scheme of green for winners and red for non-winners. While I understand its application, the colors' meanings may vary by culture. I think it would be more universal to be without color and rely only on "Won"/"Nominated", which is easy to differentiate. As an example, List of accolades received by American Beauty suffices without using the color for the awards. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erik, I wish to thank you for your comments. Regarding renaming "Awards and nominations" to "Accolades", I am assuming you are referring to the section in the main article Up in the Air (film), since this child article already has the title "List of Accolades …". Regarding using color to highlight wins and nominations, even List of accolades received by American Beauty uses green and red in the info box. I personally prefer using color coding, but understand the problems with using red and green or other contrasting colors to indicate wins and nominations. As you mention, there may be cultural differences where red and green have reversed meaning. Likewise, people with red-green color blindness cannot distinguish between the two colors. If there is a standard for this kind of list, I would prefer to follow that standard. If not, I would like other people's thoughts on this matter before making any changes. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm referring to the "Awards and nominations" section in List of accolades received by Up in the Air. It's a list of accolades, which is a wider category than just award wins and nominations. That is why I mentioned film circles and their honors. The article is titled "List of accolades..." and the section heading should be "Accolades" as in, here they are now. As for the color scheme, I don't think there's a best practice with its use. Just depends on what works best. I'm grudgingly fine with color in the infobox, but I think that color all the way down the right of the table is a bit much. Color blindness should not be an issue, anyway -- it only applies to where the contrast might be problematic, and I'm pretty sure that black on pink and light green is readable anyway. I just don't find it necessary for readability. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Erik's recommendation, I've change the section heading in Up in the Air (film) changed to "Accolades". I will wait for a few days regarding Erik's suggestion regarding color pending other comments. --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the level 2 header in List of accolades received by Up in the Air to be consistent with the article's title which, I think, is what Erik was getting at. :) I'm not a nominator or anything, just a helpful talk page stalker :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the colour useful, as it allows more glancing reference than having to focus and read the word in the last column. Further,t here are eight existing FL's of the type, only one of which; List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men doesn't use the colour scheme. That one is also the (I think) oldest of the promotions, and the only one without an infobox. Further, the colours are part of the template calls used to construct these lists, Template:Nom and Template:Won. Courcelles 20:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC) (ETA: List of accolades received by American Beauty is, IMO, not a valid comparison, as the list is not an FL, and while the lede is well-written, the list is not ready to make an appearance at FLC; though it likely could be within a few days, if anyone wanted to do the work.) Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 12 August 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 23:39, 20 August 2010 [16].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in the series of lists following the recently promoted List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK). Here's some interesting snippets for your delictation:
- Mistakenly, a 12" single that was too long to be eligible for the chart was placed at number-one for 2 weeks.
- That Kylie was kept from the top spot because cassette sales were adjudged at the time as being too cheap to be eligible for the chart.
Thanks for your reviews in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: Transcluded late, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem: List itself is fine and well referenced throughout. However, in the opening the first paragraph discusses how the charts were compiled and not at all about any number ones. If I hadn't read the article title, I would have thought it was an article on the UK charts, which it's not. The second paragraph is fine and relevant but then the third (and final) paragraph goes on to talk about cassette singles for some reason - and mentions singles which didn't go anywhere near No.1. The brief mention of the Kylie single isn't particularly important either since it went on to be a No.1 anyway and is just a bit of trivia. The title of the article should be bolded at the top of the first paragraph (or near enough) and should JUST concentrate on what is detailed in the list - a history of chart compilation and cassette singles belongs elsewhere.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in descriptive pages, the title does not have to be bolded; see WP:MOSBOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How the charts are compiled is, in effect, how the number-ones were compiled (and by whom). If you are scholarly in the subject, the method of compilation made huge differences. In the 60s and 70s it was done by music weekly magazines and was a bit of a guess (unreleable and disputed). Lots of different mags did it coming up with different number-ones. Gallup is when it really started to become how we know it today. The changing release date helps explain why in some other sources dates might differ. The automated part is important as it brings the real beginning of the Christmas number one (previously there was a break). I've trimmed the two irrelevent songs from the cassette paragraph, but formats are important as big labels blitzed the market through multi-formatting in the 1990s to get to number one. Additionally, 1 in 2 sales were cassette before it was made an eligible format (which is quite astounding). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - what is the source for the biggest selling singles of each year and the decade? I can't see a citation for that. Also, I'd question the use of Everyhit.com (somebody's personal website} to cite the million-sellers. As the article itself points out, Everyhit claims that "Tainted Love" was a million-seller even though the BPI don't even list it as a platinum disc. So in essence the article is over-ruling data issued by an official body of the UK music industry (surely a reliable source) based on something claimed on a fansite, I'm not comfortable with this. Are there any reliable sources to support the claim that the BPI's own info is wrong...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
*Comment Another point: "...if sales from cassette singles were included but they were sold for £1.99 – cheaper than the chart regualtions allowed at the time. Following the debacle the British Phonographic Industry reduced the minimum price for cassette singles to become eligible towards sales figures " - This doesn't make any sense, they REDUCED the price? But it says they were already too cheap? Also £1.99 wasn't too cheap for chart eligibility in 1989 that's for sure. The ref provided has nothing to do with - it's an article from 7 years earlier. Even if "Hand on Your Heart" would have gained an extra week - it's largely hypothetical and didn't happen.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, ref provided. It's fine. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is now fixed (I'd put the wrong one there) and quite explicit about the facts. Pre-1989 £1.99 was too cheap to be eligible. They reduced the minimum price to be eligible, so £1.99 (post-1989) was now above the minimum price and thus eligible. Make sense, and any suggestions about how to make this wording clearer? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support provided you fix the missing quote mark on the end of one of the song titles in the lead and the mis-spelling of "Reet Petite" in one of the notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Usually we don't put the navboxes under the external links header. Do we?--Chanaka L (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the EL header as there are no external links. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know nothing of the subject... about twenty years too late for my taste in British music, but I'm not finding anything to quibble about. Courcelles 23:22, 18 August 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 15:23, 17 August 2010 [18].
- Nominator(s): PresN 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With Novels down through Short Stories done, the Hugo Award list nominations moves to non-fiction with the "Best Related Work" list. Besides the slight change in subject matter this list should be almost identical in form to the others, and I've replicated critiques made in the other FLCs to this list. Thanks! --PresN 15:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
six links to dab pages (see the toolbox),but no dead external links. Ucucha 15:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed --PresN 16:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets standards. Good work. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentStrongly Support—This list has 17 red links which probably skirts "Featured list criteria" 5a "minimal proportion of items are redlinked". The majority of these are to related works that should have articles, so this is not a major concern. I will change my comment to support if the red links issue is resolved. --Dan Dassow (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh. In the last Hugo FLC, a reviewer asked that the winning short stories/books be redlinked, as they are notable for winning. I don't know what exactly you're looking for- you say that the redlinks are fine, but won't support unless they are removed? Does anyone else have an opinion on whether the winners should be redlinked? --PresN 16:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some background: There was an RfC last year over this very issue (the result was no consensus). One concern was that nominators would delink notable subjects without an article so that lists would not fail this criterion. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, there are 17 redlinks out of what appears to be several hundred links total. I don't think that that's exceeding a "minimal proportion", especially as only winning works are redlinked, not all works or authors. --PresN 18:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed Comment to Support. I consider the red link issue to be resolved per the above discussion. I also found the list to be extremely useful and well done. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Provisional support – Looked through it and didn't see any problems on top of what TRM posted. Take care of those and you can consider this a full support Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Isn't there a usable image somewhere? Surely we have pictures of a few of the writers... Courcelles 02:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel that adding some free pictures of authors really adds anything besides decoration. There used to be a fair-use image of the Hugo logo, but that got removed in the last FLC as being unnecessary. --PresN 15:39, 16 August 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 15:23, 17 August 2010 [19].
- Nominator(s): User:WFCforLife, User:HornetEd and User:Bazj
In short, I think this is the best list I have ever been involved with. Although I have made the most edits, I can only take credit for reducing redlinks, writing the lead and minor cleanup. The true credit for this gem should go to HornetEd, for his collosal effort in creating the thing from scratch. I've also listed Bazj; he added the scorers and did the lions share of the sourcing. I believe that this is only the second fully sortable seasons list, building upon the good work done in List of Nelson F.C. seasons. I humbly submit this for review. Regards, --WFC-- 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any problems; the list appears to meet the FL criteria. Always good to see some more football lists, and I especially like the sortability present here (although as the creator of List of Nelson F.C. seasons, I would do). BigDom 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Pity you didn't take it to peer review first, most of this is trivial stuff that could have been cleared up there.
- In my defence I nearly did. I changed my mind because I felt any issues, however numerous, would be relatively minor. That and a hit-miss experience of PRs for lists in the past. Sometimes FLCs fail due to lack of reviews, but never due to none.
Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Elton John appointed Graham Taylor as what?
|
- Sorting. Nominator and I differ on the value of sorting a season list. However, if it is to be sorted, it should work, and it should be helpful to the reader per FL criterion 4.
- You make some fair points below. As for criteria 4, I question how a sortable table could be failed on that point by a reviewer who would not object to a completely unsortable table.
- Don't get me wrong, If consensus is that sorting a season list is a good thing, I wouldn't oppose on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds. But until the Wikipedia sort function can cope with a complex table like a seasons list, including content like secondary league detail appearing in the league tables section, or multiple cup competitions in one season (which Watford haven't got, at least in the league era, but many clubs have), I genuinely don't see that adding sortability is helpful to the reader. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the pre-league and league eras in separate tables means the club's FA Cup achievements can't be sorted together.
- In an unsortable table, a pre-league/league split would be both logical and aesthetically preferable. To do as you suggest in a sortable table would mean introducing a lot more of those dashes, for a minimal benefit that your next comment calls into question anyway.
- "logical and aesthetically preferable", not convinced, sorry. But this point is independent of my next comment. If you think it helpful to the reader to make the FA Cup column sortable, then it doesn't seem particularly helpful to split that column into two bits depending on whether the club was playing league football or not. Though I do see that combining the tables might make sorting some of the rest of it rather messy. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The dash issue has been fixed, so this is technically possible. I'm still firmly of the opinion that it would be undesirable though. Once the FA Cup and division issues are sorted I'll demonstrate this with an edit, enabling other reviewers to look at both versions and express their preferences. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answered at the bottom of the page. I still disagree with you, but I'm happy to leave this to wider consensus. --WFC-- 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The dash issue has been fixed, so this is technically possible. I'm still firmly of the opinion that it would be undesirable though. Once the FA Cup and division issues are sorted I'll demonstrate this with an edit, enabling other reviewers to look at both versions and express their preferences. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "logical and aesthetically preferable", not convinced, sorry. But this point is independent of my next comment. If you think it helpful to the reader to make the FA Cup column sortable, then it doesn't seem particularly helpful to split that column into two bits depending on whether the club was playing league football or not. Though I do see that combining the tables might make sorting some of the rest of it rather messy. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In an unsortable table, a pre-league/league split would be both logical and aesthetically preferable. To do as you suggest in a sortable table would mean introducing a lot more of those dashes, for a minimal benefit that your next comment calls into question anyway.
- The same would apply to name of Division. You've gone part-way on this, sorting the Premier League to the top by value rather than alphabetical name. But Division 1 until 1991/92 was the top level of the system, and between 1992/93 and 2003/04 it was the second level, yet you sort them together.
- This I agree with. Furthermore I agree that this is exclusive to sortable tables, as non-sortable tables can use one footnote in the 1992/93 season to cover it. I'll have a think about how to do this, but rest assured that I'm on it.
- I think this is resolved now. --WFC-- 05:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This I agree with. Furthermore I agree that this is exclusive to sortable tables, as non-sortable tables can use one footnote in the 1992/93 season to cover it. I'll have a think about how to do this, but rest assured that I'm on it.
- It's genuinely irritating that the full-width colspanned lines come to the top as soon as you try to sort something
- Answered below.
- There are some peculiarities in the sorting. E.g. if the table is initially sorted on Division ascending, with the colspan lines at the top, and you then sort on one of the league table numeric columns, say Goals For, the 1945/46 row comes to the top, then the colspan rows, and only then the first row with any numeric content in Goals For. Sort again, so the Goals For is in descending order, 1945/46 with its emdashes stays at the top and the colspan rows disappear down the bottom. Sort again, so the Goals For returns to ascending order, the colspan rows return to the top, but 1945/46 disappears to the bottom. Stabilising at these last two orderings. Except, sometimes you start with Division ascending, sort on Goals For, and it brings the first row with numeric content to the top, and then goes through the cycle described above... This behaviour is the same on 3 different browsers: IE6, Firefox3.6 and GoogleChrome5.0
- In mathematical logic, we would describe the colspan and emdash rows as "don't care states". In plain English, provided that they do not interfere with our main aim, we disregard them. Aesthetically questionable? Perhaps. But they would still look ugly wherever they went. For the values that matter the sort function is robust here.
- If you want to take the last two comments together, I'll answer here. In plain English, if a row comes to the top when a column is sorted ascending, and stays at the top when the same column is sorted descending, then the sort doesn't work. That is what happens with the 1945/46 row in the cycle described above. We're not presenting to logicians. We're presenting to the general reader, and if the general reader sorts a column and gets presented with a wodge of colspanned text bars when they're expecting goals scored, they're not going to be overly impressed with what purports to be Wikipedia's best work. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 80% sure that the irregularities with 1939/40 and 1945/46 are now fixed. I can only vouch for that on Firefox though; I didn't try this earlier due to this being a live DYK, and having no way to test it on Internet Explorer. As for the colspans, it is possible for me to configure them so that they display as the lowest or highest value for any given row (i.e. I can make it sort as A in one row, Z in another, A in a third and so on). AFAIK, the only way to truly exclude them from sorting would be not to have a year next to them, which would in turn mean that once you started sorting they would never return to their original position.
- It seems that with some homework on my part, and potentially third party input on the 1896 split, we can achieve consensus on all of your other points. But I think that four or five colspans sorting in an irritating way would not on its own be a good enough reason to scrap sortability. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
class=sortbottom
sorts one or more rows to the bottom, but again, they won't come back unless you refresh the page. Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- That's the issue. While I do understand your point, sortbottom would do more harm than good, due to the colspans not sorting by year. I've made them less prominent, and am doing some work to mitigate how annoying they are (for instance ensuring that when sorting by goals scored, they sort as the lowest tally), but unfortunately they'll have to remain sortable. --WFC-- 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to take the last two comments together, I'll answer here. In plain English, if a row comes to the top when a column is sorted ascending, and stays at the top when the same column is sorted descending, then the sort doesn't work. That is what happens with the 1945/46 row in the cycle described above. We're not presenting to logicians. We're presenting to the general reader, and if the general reader sorts a column and gets presented with a wodge of colspanned text bars when they're expecting goals scored, they're not going to be overly impressed with what purports to be Wikipedia's best work. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In mathematical logic, we would describe the colspan and emdash rows as "don't care states". In plain English, provided that they do not interfere with our main aim, we disregard them. Aesthetically questionable? Perhaps. But they would still look ugly wherever they went. For the values that matter the sort function is robust here.
- You make some fair points below. As for criteria 4, I question how a sortable table could be failed on that point by a reviewer who would not object to a completely unsortable table.
- If the point of sorting the FA Cup column is to compare achievement in different periods, sorting by name of round doesn't do it, because it takes no account of what that round actually was. E.g. in 1904/5, there were four rounds between QR6 and the final, in 1919/20 there were five. In 1905/6, Round 2 was the round of 32, so there were three rounds between it and the final; today, the round of 32 is Round 4, and there are five rounds between Round 2 and the final ...
- I understand how sorting has brought this issue to the fore, when it might not have been thought of in the past. But surely that would be an issue for all seasons lists?
- Indeed. And it has been thought of in the past, to some extent: e.g. at List of Darlington F.C. seasons, not a featured list, where note D clarifies Darlington's best FA Cup progress was to the last 16, linked from rounds of different names. But in an unsortable table, it's easier to accept that those are just the names of rounds; when sorted, it heightens the perception that all Round 2s are the same thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in sorting them together. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously from the quarter-finals onward this isn't an issue. Further back, perhaps "Round of 16", "Round of 32" or "Last 16", "Last 32" would be better terminology, with some introductory or supplementary prose to explain the situation? That said, I would need to verify this in some way. At the moment I have verification that Watford reached the fifth round in 1995, but not that this was the last 16. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FA's FA Cup archive will verify each season. Thing is, today there are 40 teams in the Second Round proper and 80 in the First, the Round of powers-of-2 only comes in at the Third Round proper aka Round of 64. In the very early days of the competition, numbers of teams in any given round was pretty random. In between, I've no idea. So calling rounds Last 128 is probably more misleading than calling everything Round 2..... Don't know where that gets you. Input from more voices would be nice :-) Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously from the quarter-finals onward this isn't an issue. Further back, perhaps "Round of 16", "Round of 32" or "Last 16", "Last 32" would be better terminology, with some introductory or supplementary prose to explain the situation? That said, I would need to verify this in some way. At the moment I have verification that Watford reached the fifth round in 1995, but not that this was the last 16. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And it has been thought of in the past, to some extent: e.g. at List of Darlington F.C. seasons, not a featured list, where note D clarifies Darlington's best FA Cup progress was to the last 16, linked from rounds of different names. But in an unsortable table, it's easier to accept that those are just the names of rounds; when sorted, it heightens the perception that all Round 2s are the same thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in sorting them together. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand how sorting has brought this issue to the fore, when it might not have been thought of in the past. But surely that would be an issue for all seasons lists?
- As I see it, with the resources we have there are three broad options:
- 1. Do nothing in the table, explain where Watford entered the competition in a footnote: At first glance the lazy option, although I do think that a case can be made for it. In every season that we reached the fifth round, the sixth round was the quarter final. In every season that we reached the fourth round, either the fifth round was the quarter final, or the fourth round was below the fifth round (in other words, they belong alongside one another, albeit one was slightly closer to winning the competition than the other). The footnote would have to be very carefully considered, but this is potentially the way to go, and should not be dismissed out of hand.
- 2. Sort by distance from final The FA Cup archive does not allow me to say that Watford were one of the last 32 teams, for the reasons outlined by Struway above. However, it does enable me to say that Watford were four rounds from the final. Instead of a footnote stating where Watford entered, the footnote would outline how far they were from the final. I believe this is the most precise option, although it will be more confusing to the reader than approach one.
- 3. Sort by how many rounds Watford progressed through This is not really an option, because putting 1931–32 on a par with 1983–84 defies all logic. But I am stating it as an "option" for completeness. --WFC-- 06:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the FA Cup conversation downwards, both to encourage other opinions, and because my previous edit made the whole conversation look very confusing.--WFC-- 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After much thought, I've made the FA Cup column unsortable, added a brief note to explain that achievements are not necessarily equivalent and that 1984 was our best year, and will leave it there. Stru and Sandman were right to raise this point, but all the solutions I've seen on this page would either be misleading or overly confusing to the reader. It may require further tweaking, but I think this edit tries to strike the appropriate balance. --WFC-- 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment In response to a couple of Struway's comments, I have merged the two tables to graphically demonstrate the pros and cons of doing so, and have also added the second leagues. I'm still unsure as to whether it's a help or a hinderance though. Split version, combined version. Comments welcome, regards, --WFC-- 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* Cmt Stru is so thorough. A pleasure to get his reviews. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you back! --WFC-- 09:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Unsure whether it should be sortable or not, as Struway I'm not keen on it, but apart from that the list certainly has its merits. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is quite messy. For the benefit of people who are interested in the list but might be put off by such a long review:
- We're looking for input on whether the sort function is a good thing at all, and whether the way the colspans sort is appropriate.
- We need input on whether the current solution for the FA Cup is appropriate.
I can't say hand on heart that everything else raised above is resolved, but I believe these are the two points that will require wider scrutiny. Regards, --WFC-- 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I can see alot of effort has been put into this. The sort function looks better than I thought it would. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"the club entered the FA Cup and Herts Senior Cup for the first time in the 1886." Excess "the" at the end.- Done.
Early history: "The teams met on eleven further occasions, with Rovers/West Hertfordshire winning six times, St. Mary's four times." I assume there was a draw as well? Also, the Manual of Style usually discourages slashes like the one seperating the team names.- Good spot. Indeed an important one, because the tally of six wins included the first match, contrary to what the wording probably suggested.
Sorting is nice to see in a list of this type, but I did notice a small issue in the goal-scorers column. The 1977–78 leader (Ross Jenkins) is sorting by first name, not last. This runs counter to the rest of the column.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Done. I was fooled by the fact that there were four of them; at Vicarage Road I'm constantly told that there are only two ;) --WFC-- 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I was fooled by the fact that there were four of them; at Vicarage Road I'm constantly told that there are only two ;) --WFC-- 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (late, as ever, and with a view that I haven't seen any comments above, so apologies for repeats...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
One more comment hopefully only one. You originally had the supplementary leagues (United etc) in footnotes, but then moved them into the table proper. On some rows, e.g. 1898-99, you've put the supplementary league above the main league, which is a little misleading, and for such rows, the league position sorts on Watford's finishing position in the supplementary rather than their main league. If we're meant to be comparing like with like, shouldn't that column sort on the main league position throughout? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I lied, sorry. Jones's books in the General refs are missing publisher information. Struway2 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher done. I've had a good think about your sorting point. If 1898–99 was the worst example, it might not be so much of an issue, but 1905–06 is a problem. My conclusion was that there is enough context for the reader to judge the relative achievements of winning the leagues. Given that, sorting 1905–06 as a 14th-placed finishing position would probably not be helpful to the reader. A possible solution would be to always put the Southern League on the top line, sort based on the Southern League statistics (comparing like-for-like), but sort by the higher of the two league finishes (for the benefit of readers wanting to see league championships), and obviously add an explanation. Thoughts welcome. --WFC-- 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still think applying table sorting at its current (lack of) capability struggles with the "where helpful" bit of Criterion 4 There's quite a bit of added complication, both visible (e.g. the superscripts on the divisions) and particularly in the table markup, some of which I struggle to understand, so heaven help the average WP editor coming along and wanting to fix a mistake or add something. And it still can't cope with sorting the FA Cup in a meaningful manner. However, the nominator has put in an enormous amount of work (and willingly accepted the need for some of it) to improve the list from when first reviewed, when I'd have had no hesitation in opposing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words. I think the FA Cup is something we need to think about as a WikiProject, as mentioned above. In the longer run I do intend to take your points into account, through discussion on how to denote divisions at WT:SEASONS, and through the development of a template to change input like this:
Hidden code from nominator |
---|
|- |[[1914–15 Watford F.C. season|1914–15]] |
- into input closer to this:
Hidden code from nominator |
---|
{{fs year|1914-15|South 1|38|22|8|8|68|46|52|1|QR6|—|[[Southern Charity Cup]]<ref name=scc group=nb/>|R1{{sortname|George|Edmonds|George Edmonds (footballer)}}|17}} {{fs year|colspan|[[Association football during World War I|1915–17]]|Peacetime competitions were suspended during the First World War. Watford competed in the Wartime London Combination in 1915–16 and 1916–17.<ref name=WW1>''Watford Season by Season'' p. 208</ref>}} |
- I think it would be inappropriate to start a "do you like sortable season tables?" type discussion during an FLC, and I think that a template should be left until most other issues have been ironed out. But rest assured, I will pursue both of these things once this has run its course. Once again, thanks for the review. In the past I haven't always taken your criticism well (and with the benefit of a few months worth of distance I apologise for that), but even where your comments are addressed without going entirely where you would like, they always result in a better list. We're lucky to have you. Regards, --WFC-- 19:11, 11 August 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 15:23, 17 August 2010 [20].
- Nominator(s): Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone many changes to bring it up to speed with other FL listed discographies. It has gone from this to this and now satisfies all criteria at MOS:DISCOG. I think it clearly and accurately sets out the releases of the artist (Kelly Rowland) in way which is easy to understand. In the lead section care has been taken to try and accurately portray the succcess (or lack of in some cases) of her releases and use the most credible sources to provide such information. Rowland is herself a notable artist and the comprehensiveness of the discography now sets a good standard for other articles. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are ARIA certs the only ones available? Surely Dilemma should be certified by the RIAA and multiple other countries, as would "Work" by the BPI. Also I don't know the MoS criteria, so I don't know but are certs also included in featured singles on the featured artist's discog? Candyo32 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will double check the certs for Dilema. Well according to the VH1 source the song was a joint single. It was named Rowland's debut single and the second single from Nelly's album. It does appear on both albums.Ok i got that wrong. All the certifications list the song as a Nelly release so I've moved it to the featured artists section. Also "Work" hasn't been certified by BPI --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- do you think it is sufficient now? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Mister sparky (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of the above, but have an issue with the music videos in that many FLs (Pink discography included) uses links like http://www.vh1.com/video/pnk/9645/there-you-go.jhtml#artist= which do not state who produced each of the videos instead merely link to the video themselves. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mister sparky (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all my issues have been resolved. Mister sparky (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
L-l-CLK-l-l Comments |
---|
Alright, the article looks great for the most part. The following are issues i have with it :
|
- Support - All of the issues i had with the article have been addressed. Great work on the article :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment Ref 33 redirects to the main page of the website instead of going to the specific article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- resolved.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In Kelly Rowland discography#As a main artist, the two endnotes, [a] and [b], go nowhere; should be removed or targets added.
- resolved --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed these to use normal refs and a 'note' group so that they're consistent with site norms. Note how the second one now gives you two uplinks to the two spots the ref is invoked. Jack Merridew 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- resolved --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More seriously, the entire table scheme used in all WP:WikiProject Discographies pages is completely at odds with several sections of WP:Manual of Style (accessibility):
- The use of rowspans and colspans in the header directly contravenes WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Data tables. There are current threads at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility) that relate to some of this. Such spans are problematic for more reasons, too, such as their preclusion of useful features such as sorting; see WP:Manual of Style (tables)#Formatting and Help:Table#Sorting.
- The tables also flagrantly flaunt the guidance at WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Styles and markup options, specifically the part about inline HTML and CSS styling. These tables are a veritable sea of hard-coded inline markup, pretty much on a per-cell basis. This is all inappropriate and the approach to the implementation of discographies as tables is in need of serious overhaul.
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response I have yet to to implement the accessibility changes because so far I've yet to find an FL Discography that does comply. To best of my knowledge the accessibility thing is a recent development and there is an on-going discussion going on at MOS:DISCOG#Accessibility issues. I was waiting for more guidance as its obvious that changes were made to the use of data tables without informing other projects so we're having to play catch up. MOS:DISCOG has not been updated to reflect the new access formatting so I refrained from making changes until it was 100% confirmed at the guidance. Currently Kelly Rowland discography follows the appropriate manual of style for discographies at MOS:DISCOG just as other FL discogs do. Its quite confusing if the MOS in different places states different things.If the FL directors wish me to follow the new accessibility guidance and wish to implement the changes then of course I'm happy to do so but you have to understand that consulation did not take place regarding the change and so like I've pointed out MOS:DISCOG does not reflect the new requirements (so I doubt if any existing FLs do). So of course to me its feels likes it quite big changes that have been sprung upon us and so at the time when nominating the article I did so with an understanding of the standards that were acceptible then. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that this is a recently noted issue; regarding discographies, at least. The page I'm seeing at MOS:DISCOG is just a WikiProject page and is not a guideline; it amounts to WP:CONLIMITED. I'm referring to long-standing aspects of the site-wide MOS, which trump WikiProject preferences when conflict arises. I'm not surprised that you're not seeing any FL Discographies that comply with the MOS; I didn't see any that did. The problem here would seem to be a WikiProject ignoring the MOS over time, which is inappropriate. The discussion I just read at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style#Accessibility issues is quite off the mark on some points, such as the row and column spans being acceptable. That discussion is mostly focused on the scope="col" issue, which I didn't even comment on, above. See the links I gave, which concern long-standing MOS guidance. I'll be glad to advise your WikiProject on the appropriate directions to take. Next week, though, as I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response I have yet to to implement the accessibility changes because so far I've yet to find an FL Discography that does comply. To best of my knowledge the accessibility thing is a recent development and there is an on-going discussion going on at MOS:DISCOG#Accessibility issues. I was waiting for more guidance as its obvious that changes were made to the use of data tables without informing other projects so we're having to play catch up. MOS:DISCOG has not been updated to reflect the new access formatting so I refrained from making changes until it was 100% confirmed at the guidance. Currently Kelly Rowland discography follows the appropriate manual of style for discographies at MOS:DISCOG just as other FL discogs do. Its quite confusing if the MOS in different places states different things.If the FL directors wish me to follow the new accessibility guidance and wish to implement the changes then of course I'm happy to do so but you have to understand that consulation did not take place regarding the change and so like I've pointed out MOS:DISCOG does not reflect the new requirements (so I doubt if any existing FLs do). So of course to me its feels likes it quite big changes that have been sprung upon us and so at the time when nominating the article I did so with an understanding of the standards that were acceptible then. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Kelly Rowland discography#As a main artist, the two endnotes, [a] and [b], go nowhere; should be removed or targets added.
- Jack I really do appreciate your help but some of these changes are way to drastic and unrequired. One of your own edits which you removed the italics from the reference template I tried to undo but didn't realise that it also undid other stuff. Therefore you need to add back the '' marks for the "work=" parameter in the referencing. Per MOS:TEXT things like VH1 should not appear in italics in the text nor should they appear as VH1 in the referencing even though the "work=" parameter is pre-programmed to do so. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See RexxS's comment about this, back on my talk; one of our large threads there. He pointed us at Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. That thread has been rolling along for ten weeks and seems to have concluded that the 'work' field is correctly adding italics and that MOS:ITALIC (aka MOS:TEXT#Italic face) needs changing, that for websites, the work field should get the gist of the site url. This is what I've been telling you. The work field should not be getting VH1 in it. I dunno if that DISCOG/style page is saying to do this, or if it's just the pattern that's been set by that crowd, but you need to stop following bad advice, wherever it comes from. You've come around on some of the things I've been telling you, and I'm thinking I've been proven right on this issue... This site empowers people; some get to trippin' on it; kewl, I canz writes da rulz. Some people on this site have been doing web development since there was an interwebz, and other kinds of software development for longer, yet. I've said this before, and in other contexts, that a key to success on this project is listening, and knowing who to listen to. Up to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question
Are we happy to hold-off on any accessibility changes until the discussion on the discography project talk page is market and completed as resolved? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no; that page will never make it to MOS-status. It's all about going against the MOS and modern web design. It needs a complete reboot. Meanwhile, we should not be granting FL status to pages that are not following the MOS re accessibility. I am sorry that it happened to be a page that you were working on when this issue blew-up. I've working on these issues for a long time, and then the DISCOG tables and rowspans came up on, I think, WT:ACCESSIBILITY, and that caught my eye. Also, you see that Dodoïste said he liked my User:Lil-unique1/Sandbox/8#E.g. 3 take on next-gen DISCOG-tables, best? Try seeing 'accessibility' as meaning to stop trying to control things so much. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a query, the MOS used to mandate "alt text", then it turned out that no-one could adequately define it, so it was removed. As such, FLC temporarily bowed to the whims of MOS editors who simply moved the goalposts (it seemed) for alt text, only to remove it not long after. I could do some more research but am pressed for time, is this modification to the MOS a long-held guideline, or is it a recent update? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by the recent history of WP:ACCESS, the relevant parts of the guideline are unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unfamiliar with the alt-text discussions; alt-text is a good thing and it would be even better to be supporting the title attribute... The W3C has definitions ;) Alt should be clinically descriptive ('img of woman in a red dress'), titles should track more with captions and be human readable prose, albeit succinct. Alt text is primarily for those unable to see an image; the blind/vision impaired and Googlebot.
- The bits in MOS:ACCESS re the scope-attribute are new. The parts about the issues with row/col spans have been there a long time, as has the caution re inline HTML and CSS styling (WP:Deviations, 2nd paragraph, especially). The two bulleted points in my initial post ↑↑ concern these long-standing MOS issues, not the new "scope" issue. Recent attention on the rowspan concern has resulting in attacks on that aspect of the MOS; some of this is misunderstanding of accessibility issues and some seems to be about attempting to throw-down good guidance that is inconvenient to efforts to extensively customize tables with lots of hard-coded markup that is inappropriate. These DISCOG tables have been at odds with the MOS and good coding practice for at least several years. This particular page just happens to be the one that was coming down the pike when I focused on the issue. I know that Lil-unique1 was just following what he thought was appropriate guidance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this article still has my support. by reading through all the arguements/discussions that are littered about all over the place regarding discographies and the accessibility issues, it seems they are still up for much more discussion and nothing concrete has been decided. before all discographies are forced to change what has been going on for a long time there needs to be some concrete guidelines agreed by overall consensus. this has not yet happened. Mister sparky (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That puts the cart before the horse. Guidelines describe the consensus of what is done, not prescribe how to do it. Featured articles and lists should represent the very best work on Wikipedia and by ignoring genuine, specific issues that are already documented in MOS, we fossilise poor practice and create yet another example for others to misapply. Just as the lead image lacks alt text, rendering it worthless to a blind reader, the tables are unnecessarily difficult for a text-to-speech reader. In what way would removing the excess inline styling (for example) contravene the MOS? And yet, if I view the first table on my 17" screen laptop at its native resolution, I have problems reading the 75% text – and I don't class myself as visually impaired. Several tables can cause problems because they rowspan the first column ("Year"), and yet even WP:WikiProject Discographies/style states: "Each release is given its own row, with various pieces of information creating a series of columns.", but in the Singles chart, the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information. Why isn't "Train on a Track" the row header? It's the unique identifier for the release, not the (non-existent) year. There's no reason not to fix problems like these, other than a desire to control the format to such an extent that is only appropriate for part of our audience. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information" - it clearly shows that "train ona track" was released in 2003 and is on the album simply deep, not difficult. and i have a 17" laptop screen at its normal resolution and i can see it perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.179 (talk • contribs)
- Yes, you can see it. Now try and get a screen reader to read out that row, can you hear it? (Hint: no, you can't. because it's not there in the HTML). --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information" - it clearly shows that "train ona track" was released in 2003 and is on the album simply deep, not difficult. and i have a 17" laptop screen at its normal resolution and i can see it perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.179 (talk • contribs)
- My argument is why is everyone battering this article with a huge stick when it follows the style and format of all other FL discographies. Nowhere does project discography say thatyou cannot merge cells for year/albums. I think you'll find that ALL FLs merge cells for albums and years. Also I use a 16" laptop and I have no issue with the 75% formatting. As far as I'm aware and from what I was told the "style="width:3.5em;font-size:75%;" formatting allows web browsers to adjust the formatting to fit the dimensions and resolution of the screen. Lots of users have stated on the discography talk page and the talk page of WP:Accessibility that the changes and updates are on-going. Its also been stated that more expert opinion and clear evidence is required as well as everyone commenting that it would be unwise to radically transform any article based on an unstable and constantly changing policy. My arguments are that based on the current given standards this article does examplify the best standards for lists. If you think it doesnt then why not criticise the existing FLs and FL discographies upon which this was based? No one is saying that such changes won't be made, we're just wanting to put them off until there is a clear cut consensus and mandate on how to implement the changes best. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your 16" laptop have a resolution of 1920px across? If it does, and you can read that 75% text, just count yourself lucky for having superb vision, and then take a moment to put yourself in the place of those of us who are not so fortunate. You were misinformed, by the way, about style="font-size:75%;"; browsers do not adjust text size depending on the resolution of the display – you tell it to use 75% of the normal (12.7px) text and it comes out as 9.5px text, with the ref numbers in 8.5px text. Why do you have to inflict that size of text on anyone whose eyesight is less than perfect? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I'll admit I'm not a massive fan of the small text myself but I've used it because every other FL and every discography I've encountered has. I've removed it as I dont see it as a major requirement. Is it better now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the <small>Small Text</small> as well. As it happens, that's less of a problem as it can be overridden in my monobook.css (although I'd rather not have to) and it's almost 10px, but I think it looks cleaner without the different text sizes anyway. You can always ask yourself: "Do they actually lend any value to the article? If not, why are they there?" I really hope you don't think I'm picking on this article, but I do believe you have the chance here to set a valuable standard for others in the future. Be better than what's gone before. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You see I'm happy to listen to your suggestions and see if/when/where the changes or concessions can be made. I respect genuine comments when the person giving the comments is not patronising nor trying to sound like the 'tree of life' on the subject. What do you make of the new proposed tables on the discography talk page? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Cutting the style="font-size:75%;" and <small> are steps in the right direction. Terima kasih. As I've been saying, you and others have been following poor advice; the /style page and the extant Discog FL's all offer poor techniques to copypasta. I noted that there were two FL Discogs at FLR and considered bringing these concerns there. They're at FLR for other reasons (crosses fingers as I've not looked in days;), and more issues as discussed here would likely seal their fate as demoted. I didn't because that would fragment the discussion. Look, I'm sorry this landed on the page you've been working on; I said I'd help get it to follow the core intent of the real MOS (not the pretender with the lying prefix). I have a huge amount of coding experience. I've worked on apps that are millions of lines of code. Not stuff written in mere html and css, either. You know what? Repetitive code bloat bites you in the ass, every time. It hosed Longhorn, and cost Bill tens of billions of dollars. Jack Merridew 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lil, I don't think I could usefully add to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style, but you will recognise that I don't like text that renders below about 10px; that I think the first column (row headers) should contain the unique identifier for the entry in that row (screen readers can speak that for each cell, allowing non-linear navigation of the table for the blind); and that I don't like references in the headers (for the previous reason). Have a look at this article again and see if there are any changes that could improve any of those aspects. If there are, can you see any good reason why if the article were as good as it could be, it should not contain those changes. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the <small>Small Text</small> as well. As it happens, that's less of a problem as it can be overridden in my monobook.css (although I'd rather not have to) and it's almost 10px, but I think it looks cleaner without the different text sizes anyway. You can always ask yourself: "Do they actually lend any value to the article? If not, why are they there?" I really hope you don't think I'm picking on this article, but I do believe you have the chance here to set a valuable standard for others in the future. Be better than what's gone before. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I'll admit I'm not a massive fan of the small text myself but I've used it because every other FL and every discography I've encountered has. I've removed it as I dont see it as a major requirement. Is it better now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your 16" laptop have a resolution of 1920px across? If it does, and you can read that 75% text, just count yourself lucky for having superb vision, and then take a moment to put yourself in the place of those of us who are not so fortunate. You were misinformed, by the way, about style="font-size:75%;"; browsers do not adjust text size depending on the resolution of the display – you tell it to use 75% of the normal (12.7px) text and it comes out as 9.5px text, with the ref numbers in 8.5px text. Why do you have to inflict that size of text on anyone whose eyesight is less than perfect? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if everybody thats been working on FL discogs has been using bad examples to follow and "copy", why doesn't somebody who knows that they're doing (ie Jack) make the kelly rowland album and singles tables that adher to MOS perfectly? then we know exactly where we're going wrong and actually have a correct template to follow. all these discussions/arguements that are all over the place are going nowhere. Mister sparky (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no issues and am not getting involved in any MOS discussions. I'm fine with the tables as is but would likely still be fine if modified. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues from Adabow (talk · contribs) |
---|
*Comment The article for "Stole" mentions a BPI cert; this isn't here. I will support after this is sorted out and alt text is added to the infobox's image. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support I guess I was making issues out of nothing Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note I have promoted this candidate to featured status. A couple editors raised concerns with regard to the accessibility guidelines, which FLs must normally comply with per criterion 2. However, these guideliines are currently in flux right now. The thrust of criterion 2 is to promote stability and consistency in the style, but this purpose is defeated when the style guidelines themselves are constantly changing. I encourage discography editors and the accessibility experts to work together to create a stable, consensus-backed guideline that everyone can follow to make our articles accessible to as many readers as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 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 16:17, 16 August 2010 [23].
- Nominator(s): sonia♫♪ and Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
18 years later, and I still remember those crystal medals, and wondering how many of the athletes actually managed to get them home. The answer to that question isn't found here, but Sonia and I hope you enjoy it nonetheless. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I tried and tried, but could not find anything in the list itself to nitpick. The lead is well-written, and the medal counts are verified correctly against the source. My only comment relates to the navigation template, Template:Olympic games medal table—the colored text is a bit hard to read (especially "medalists", in yellow). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I imagine that template is copying the five colours of the Olympic rings. If it's an issue, I think it would need to be brought up at WT:OLY, as I'm not sure what would be better, and also be visible on a blue background. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
CommentSupport –"Silver medal-winning slalom skier Annelise Coberger-in addition to winning New Zealand's first Winter Olympic medal-became the first athlete from the Southern Hemisphere to win a medal at the Winter Olympics." Seems to me that the bracketing hyphens should be em dashes; they shouldn't be hyphens to start with, and em dashes are used similarly elsewhere in the list.Other than this issue, everything looks okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yep, you're right. I usually put in hyphens and then run the dash script, I forgot this time. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't specify any width for the medal image. The default width is bigger and apropriate;
- You're right, removed; that was a vestige of the old image that completely overwhelmed the page.
- No alt text for medal image?
- Added.
- Typo (2x): skiier → skier;
- Whoops. Thanks for the review. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't specify any width for the medal image. The default width is bigger and apropriate;
Support Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 10:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* what makes sports-reference.com a reliable source? It seems to be self-published.
|
- 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 15:16, 13 August 2010 [24].
- Nominator(s): Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After a 15-month absence from nominating anything here, I've finally back with my first-ever creation of a list. I may not be a regular nominator, but an opportunity existed that was too good to pass up. The NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, a major sporting event in the U.S., somehow didn't have a dedicated list of winners until recently, when I got to work. This list took a long time to make, but I believe the end result is worth the effort. From the referencing to the sortability to the lead, I think this is ready to have the star put on it. It has been through a peer review, and the feedback was quite positive. As in the distant past, I'll be here to address comments as they pop up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dead external links. There was a self-redirecting link in a navigation template, which I have corrected. Ucucha 06:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support provided you correct the mis-spelling of "prestigious" in the lead. I couldn't find anything else to pick up, and even as someone who knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about basketball, it read perfectly intelligibly to me, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it. Can't believe I didn't pick up on that before. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks perfect to me —Chris!c/t 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
|
- Support Courcelles (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support couldn't find anything in the PR, so will support now. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 15:47, 12 August 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 15:13, 13 August 2010 [25].
- Nominator(s): White Shadows It's a wonderful life 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I've addressed all of the issues from the last FLC of this list and added in a book that was missing from this page that resulted in the failure of the first FLC, Anthony Sokol's The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. Feel free to make any comments and let me know of any issues that you see. (I modeled this off of Parsec's List of battleships of Germany list which is currently a FL) White Shadows It's a wonderful life 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)]][reply] |
---|
#
More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments2:
|
- Support. I do not see any further problems. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's Ships, they use €300-books, what can you do but support. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
That's all I have. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- I'm very happy to see that Sokol is being cited, but I'd really like to see more of Greger, a book more focused on the ship themselves. But I'm trying to get a copy myself so I can see what might have been missed.
- I've looked everywhere for a copy of Greger's book but there are no copies on Amazon or any other sites. It also doesn't seem to be in the ILL or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but even if I found a copy for purchase, I simply do not have enough money to buy another book right now. If you can somehow get your hands on it I'd appreciate it :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Sturmvogel been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just done it now.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Sturmvogel been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked everywhere for a copy of Greger's book but there are no copies on Amazon or any other sites. It also doesn't seem to be in the ILL or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but even if I found a copy for purchase, I simply do not have enough money to buy another book right now. If you can somehow get your hands on it I'd appreciate it :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for the citation numbers being out of order. Forex cite 24 might be listed after cite 25. There's at least one example involving Greger that I caught.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get that fixed.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More detailed comments after I've added all relevant info from Greger:
- Reference titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and some need place of publication.
- Like some others, I think that I've fixed the issue with the capitalization of book titles but I'm not 100% sure. Please check o make sure that I did not mess up or anything :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fitzsimmons needs either OCLC or ISBN #, Sokol needs OCLC number.
- Added OCLC numbers for both of them.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't rowspan commands used to combine identical cells?
- I honestly have no clue what you are talking about in this case. Can you try to run that over me again?--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rowspans implemented. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly have no clue what you are talking about in this case. Can you try to run that over me again?--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes ref 22 reliable?
- Replaced the citation.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most place names should be linked on first occurrence.
- I believe that I've fixed that (as well as correcting any over-linking issues) but I could be wrong. If there are any links that I left out, just tell me.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of little niggles, but nothing that won't prevent me from supporting once they're fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and some need place of publication.
- More detailed comments after I've added all relevant info from Greger:
- I'll get that fixed.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 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 18:35, 12 August 2010 [28].
- Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list, along with many others of its series, contained hardly anything else besides the table. I have expanded considerably its content by adding a substantial lede section, with an sufficient number of sources; a fitting lede image, an adequate "See also" section", and finally a proper and updated "References" section. I appreciate your input. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll perform a full review later, but isn't there any pictures that can go in the "medal table" section? All that white space is unattractive. Also, cropping the picture of Blair's medal would let the medal be seen at a larger scale. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest me to add, apart from athlete pics? In last resort I can add some. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ended up adding images on two athletes which have contributed strongly to their country's medal count. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not finding anything here to quibble about. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ended up adding images on two athletes which have contributed strongly to their country's medal count. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I do not see any serious problem. Ruslik_Zero 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Most everything looks fine.
The one little quibble I have is that I thought "settling with two silver and three bronze medals" was a touch awkward; usually you'd see "settling for" there.Not enough to prevent my support, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 2 August 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 15:18, 10 August 2010 [29].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been a while but I'm back again. :) One small question on this list I left at the talk page, whether Booty and/or Kotsay won rings in 97. Both briefly appeared during that season, but neither appeared in the postseason. The one thing going for Booty is from his gamelogs he was pretty clearly a September call-up, and I think everyone on the postseason roster gets a ring (and such a call-up would probably get a shot at the roster). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—four dab links (Charles Johnson, Eastlake High School, Westlake High School, Wheeler High School); no dead external links. Ucucha 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, sorry I let this idle so long. Fixed! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, found nothing wrong with the list. Only thing I can think of is adding the year of establishment in the first paragraph. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about it, but they drafted in 92 despite starting play in 93 so I thought it'd be confusing. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments :Link Chicago White Sox in the footnotes.
|
- Support. Courcelles 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment –
"though have never drafted a second baseman." I think this would be a touch better with one of two variations: either change "though" to "but" or make it "though they have never...".That's all I can find. As always, it's a struggle to find a complaint with the lists in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 9 August 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.
- 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 15:18, 10 August 2010 [30].
- Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it completes the main lists of Scottish islands and I believe meets the criteria. Ben MacDui 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links,
but the external link to http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/ doesn't go where it ought to go.Ucucha 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ben MacDui 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 19:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ben MacDui 19:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC |
---|
*Comment Initial reaction is generally positive. I'll return to review this one when I've got a bit less on my plate. As a brief opening comment, "storm washed" could do with qualification. I'm confident of what it means through familiarity with Rockall, but a reader without that benefit might not work it out. --WFC-- 23:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from WFC:
Regards, --WFC-- 07:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. I wasn't sure if I would be able to judge 3(a), but the user has clearly demonstrated enough knowledge of the subject matter to remove any doubt there. The short lead can be explained by the fact that the introduction to the table is quite long, and in my view that's the correct approach. An excellent piece of work! --WFC-- 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks. Ben MacDui 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why there is no references in some notes? Ruslik_Zero 17:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will list them below and comment individually:
- Various other definitions are used in the Scottish context. For example, the General Register Office for Scotland define an island as "a mass of land surrounded by water, separate from the Scottish mainland" but although they include islands linked by bridges etc., this is not clear from this definition. Haswell-Smith (2004) uses "an Island is a piece of land or group of pieces of land which is entirely surrounded by water at Lowest Astronomical Tide and to which there is no permanent means of dry access". This is widely agreed to be unhelpful as it consciously excludes bridged islands.
- The GRO is cited as a reference. There are no page numbers to cite. The information is provided under the heading "Appendix". H-Smith's is in the Preface page xi. I can add this easily enough.
- Now done. Ben MacDui 07:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GRO is cited as a reference. There are no page numbers to cite. The information is provided under the heading "Appendix". H-Smith's is in the Preface page xi. I can add this easily enough.
- ^ Encyclopædia Britannica (1978) says: Hebrides – group of islands of the west coast of Scotland extending in an arc between 55.35 and 58.30 N and 5.26 and 8.40 W." This includes Gigha, St Kilda and everything up to Cape Wrath – although not North Rona.
- If you think this needs a page number I can add it.
- ^ When inhabited, these islands had strong cultural ties to the Hebrides, but they are quite distinct from the Outer Hebrides geologically and Haswell-Smith (2004) pp. 313–331 lists St Kilda in "Section 9: The Atlantic Outliers".
- This is referenced within the note. Do you think this information needs to be moved to a separate ref?
- Now done. Ben MacDui 18:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is referenced within the note. Do you think this information needs to be moved to a separate ref?
- ^ Aird an Runair, North Uist approximately Mean High Water Springs ETRS89 57°36’10.42010"N 7°32’56.63226"W, grid reference NF 68686,70560. Distance to Rockall approximately 366.966km (228.022mi) (198.146nmi).
- The first sentence is simply a statement. The second is, I admit, an unreferenced calculation, albeit hardly controversial. I'll see if anything definitive is available to corroborate this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything.
- Amended and ref added. Note that this now includes examples of the the grid ref. links referred to below. Ben MacDui 08:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence is simply a statement. The second is, I admit, an unreferenced calculation, albeit hardly controversial. I'll see if anything definitive is available to corroborate this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything.
- ^ Note that the Ordnance Survey maps mark the height above sea level of a high point on most islands, but in a small number of cases, this may not be the highest point.
- This is a caveat and I don't see how it could be referenced.
- Indicates the presence of a lighthouse on Ordnance Survey maps.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference.
- ^ As the name implies there are two small islets separated at higher stages of the tide. The smaller islet is circa 0.25 ha.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced unless by adding a grid reference.
- ^ The Ordnance Survey indicate the presence of a ruined chapel.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference, unless by adding a grid reference.
- ^ The two islands are connected to one another and the mainland at low tides and were probably inhabited at some point in the past.
- The first statement is clear from an OS map. A quick search turns up nothing to confirm the second statement, but it is inconceivable they were not inhabited at some point in the past. I will take a longer look.
- Done. The Gaelic name is a clue - see also Innse Gall. Ben MacDui 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first statement is clear from an OS map. A quick search turns up nothing to confirm the second statement, but it is inconceivable they were not inhabited at some point in the past. I will take a longer look.
- ^ None of the very small islets are named by the Ordnance Survey.
- I don't see how it could be referenced any further, unless by adding a grid reference.
- Various other definitions are used in the Scottish context. For example, the General Register Office for Scotland define an island as "a mass of land surrounded by water, separate from the Scottish mainland" but although they include islands linked by bridges etc., this is not clear from this definition. Haswell-Smith (2004) uses "an Island is a piece of land or group of pieces of land which is entirely surrounded by water at Lowest Astronomical Tide and to which there is no permanent means of dry access". This is widely agreed to be unhelpful as it consciously excludes bridged islands.
First pass of replies - I'll take some time to look at the details asap. Ben MacDui 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second pass complete - awaiting further comments. Ben MacDui 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Cmts Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - I'll get to the "none" issue tomorrow I hope Ben MacDui 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good list Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks also. Ben MacDui 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ben MacDui 09:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I do not see any other problems. Ruslik_Zero 06:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK - many thanks. Ben MacDui 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose mostly great, a few (initial) fundamentals, which may just be me and my tiredness...
I'll come back when these are dealt with, just a quick run-through of the first couple of sections... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) OK - thanks. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support as ever, a pleasure working with a dedicated and committed editor who is prepared to listen to criticism and take it positively. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 9 August 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 15:18, 10 August 2010 [31].
- Nominator(s): J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of all the Listed buildings in Rivington. The text has been copyedited and the format is one used in other successful FLs. J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fire comment, will review in more detail later (but delighted to see it here!) – have a look at some of those previous FLs and find some categories into which this list can be put. BencherliteTalk 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although I must declare an interest. I was responsible for making the date column search (I hope properly), and for unifying the format of the references. Otherwise the list has been completely compiled and collated by the nominator. It is comprehensive, well presented and there is an appropriate amount of information on the buildings. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An editor has deleted all the details of the publishers of the Heritage Gateway website; I understood that it is mandatory to include the name(s) of the publisher in a reference. To this end I have added a note at the start of the References section giving this detail. Actually it looks much tidier and IMO does the job just as well. Is that acceptable?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, I think it meets all the criteria, and is well-written and interesting. A query: why are the page titles and website titles in the references section in italics?--BelovedFreak 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the way {{citation}} formats the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the website title, I know, but we can override it, and I thought that that was generally thought desirable, per WP:ITALICS. That's the principal I've been working from. Am I wrong, or is it not considered a problem either way? I've never been completely clear on whether or not WP:ITALICS also applies to the references.
- {{Citation}} doesn't format the page title in italics, that has been manually added here (eg. ''Hamer's Cottage, Rivington''). Just wondered if there was a reason.--BelovedFreak 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:ITALICS requires italics for page titles, but for printed publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. My concern is whether or not it prohibits (or, rather, discourages) italics for page titles.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the italics, suggest you look at the discussion here on the subject. I'm not sure this completely resolves the situation, but it does explain why things are as they are in this list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that helped a little, although I'm still unclear on which is the right way to do it, but I'm more than satisfied as far as this FLC goes.--BelovedFreak 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am unclear (not unusual for me). My personal feeling is that there should not be two "families" of citations. Makes it difficult for mere mortals like us (?).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that helped a little, although I'm still unclear on which is the right way to do it, but I'm more than satisfied as far as this FLC goes.--BelovedFreak 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the italics, suggest you look at the discussion here on the subject. I'm not sure this completely resolves the situation, but it does explain why things are as they are in this list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. My concern is whether or not it prohibits (or, rather, discourages) italics for page titles.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:ITALICS requires italics for page titles, but for printed publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the way {{citation}} formats the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for your support, much appreciated. As to the italics, User:Peter I. Vardy was kind enough to format them for me following a discussion elsewhere as I am "challenged" when it comes to understanding technicalities. I think I know how to remove the italics if it's a problem.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should change it if it isn't a problem, I'm just trying to work out whether or not it is! It's my understanding that the references go against the WP:MOS as they are, but I'm also aware that Peter's lists have got through FLC just fine, in the same format, so that's why I wouldn't oppose based on that.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the publisher for Janet Waymark's book? Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frances Lincoln, as the citation says. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, what's the location? Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- London, which I've added. Personally though, I prefer not to include the locations for any sources, but each to their own. Malleus Fatuorum 21:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, then, what's the location? Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frances Lincoln, as the citation says. Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Malleus, I don't care much about locations, either, so long as they're consistent. Clare Hartwell's book already had the location. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thank you for your support Courcelles, much appreciated. And Thank you too MF--J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 7 August 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 15:01, 7 August 2010 [32].
- Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been a bit of a challenge. I found it with a single sentence of prose, a handful of references (with one of them being IMDb) and no infobox. Finding sources for this list has probably been the most difficult part of this task, as the film came out nine years ago. However, after a few days work I believe that this list now meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—References 26 and 27 are the same. They link to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2001awards which redirects to http://www.ofcs.org/ . http://www.ofcs.org/ is updated daily. --Dan Dassow (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The website has been through an update since I added the refs, I should have archived them. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced four redirecting links with the equivalent non-redirecting links. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Comments adequately addressed. I also did a check for consistency between the main list and the infobox and a spot check of ~10 awards. Everything looks in order, good work! Jujutacular T · C 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I saw a few small quibbles (grammar, punctuation), but I could just fix them faster than I could outline them here. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and the fixes. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-JuneGloom07 addressed my minor nit pick. I could not find any other issues with the list. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — The list looks good to me, though I did change "&" to "and" in the infobox for consistency. Also, there is quite a bit of duplicate linking in the References section, though I am not certain of the policy here and it does not bother me enough to oppose the nomination. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the fix and the support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 August 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 15:01, 7 August 2010 [33].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman, User:Halvorsen brian 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it was a break from the franchises who have had long draft histories, as such it's easier for you guys to get through as well ^^. It's interesting how some of these names are among the top of the league, unlike anyone the Indians or Cubs have picked of late. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work, and unlike my Cubs list, the last decade has players I've actually heard of! Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my goodness, this doesn't normally happen... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – No complaints from me either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 5 August 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 22:21, 4 August 2010 [34].
The final bearth of the sorting problems is finally finished, and I combed over the last nom and fixed everything everyone suggested. Hopefully, third time is the charm. ...man I wish I didn't have to nom so many times >.>
- Support - With a few suggestions. The nominator's hard work is evident, but they need to understand that a lot is expected of featured content. ;) ceranthor 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The third lead paragraph needs splitting or some work. The sentence mentioning George Bush doesn't flow into the information before it: I'd appreciate it if you could fine a way to fix it, as it doesn't read well in its present state.
- Well they are two seperate points on the same section, so I split them into two paragraphs. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is the closest to the hotspot, this volcanically active region is the youngest part of the chain, with ages ranging from 400,000 years[2] to 5.1 million years.[3] - I assume you're referring to the age of volcanic rock, but the general reader doesn't know that. It's a nitpick, sure, but worth changing.
- Age as in first eruption/oldest rock. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The oldest and most heavily eroded part of the chain are the Emperor seamounts, which stand at between 39[6] and 85 million years in age.[7 - verb tense agreement "part" and "are" don't work ;)
- Grammerphile :) ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely you can include some notes on those three seamounts? Anything would be appreciated, the blanks aren't consistent with the rest of the article.
- There's hardly anything to say about them, which is why they are blank. Nothing but name coordinates really cuz they're not that well studied. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And by that I mean that their existance is "hey look a seamount! Seems pretty prominent. Lets name it after Frank, because we want to be original." ResMar 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As I found my concerns from the previous have been addressed, so I will support. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A nice and extensive list. Volcanoguy 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Cmt Good progress from last time around!. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Remaining quibbles fixed. I would rephrase the note on CI to:"The date lies within the date-range with a confidence level of 95%." Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the phrase to reflect the meaning of "standard deviation". Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current phrasing is out-right wrong. 95% of data is not within the date range. The correct description is that in 95 out of 100 estimates (as single point) the date will be within the date-range. Loosely (not correctly): If you have 20 volcanoes in the list one of the date estimates would be outside the given range. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue: the Sharp paper is being attributed to 2 sigma error, but it is actually the Clague paper that we were talking about above. I can't check what the error is in the Sharp paper right now, because I'm at the airport and the internet is slow enough that it's taken several minutes to load the "edit" page here, but this will need to be fixed. Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, there are two Clauges, ref 19 and ref 47. Which one do you mean? Having their error ranges is nice and everything but utterly useless really, cuz they're referenced two times and once, respectivevly, and like that I can make a 20-note notes column with refs like that. We really neeed Sharpe, that's the big one. ResMar 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Clague that the above discussion was about. I'm not suggesting removing Sharp; it's that you put the info on standard deviations from the Clague article on the dates with the Sharp ref. (Maybe this will help: the link that you emailed me was the Sharp article, but it is actually the Clague article being discussed above). Awickert (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I'm not quite understanding you here, are you saying I should put the deviation note from Clauge 19 on Sharpe as well? ResMar 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The opposite actually: Clague instead of Sharp. You fixed it already, Awickert (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I'm not quite understanding you here, are you saying I should put the deviation note from Clauge 19 on Sharpe as well? ResMar 02:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Clague that the above discussion was about. I'm not suggesting removing Sharp; it's that you put the info on standard deviations from the Clague article on the dates with the Sharp ref. (Maybe this will help: the link that you emailed me was the Sharp article, but it is actually the Clague article being discussed above). Awickert (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support - looks good to me (and I know it pretty well at this point :) ), Awickert (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hawaiian archipelago table – just my opinion, but when sorting by age, shouldn't Hualālai (300,000 years) be first, followed by Kīlauea (300,000–600,000), and then Lōʻihi Seamount (400,000)? Also, shouldn't Kohala come before Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea? It seems logical that ~ 120,000–1 million would precede 700,000–1 million and ~1 million. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of an illustration of how inaccurate dating is. It's hard to date a volcao: the oldest dated rock is almost never the age of the volcano itself, and the most accurate number would require records of its first eruption (like in the case of Paracutin). Pure logic (and an understanding of hotspot plate tectonics) states that the closer the volcano is to the hotspot, the younger it is. Therefore the near-hotspot order is Loihi-Kilauea-Mauna Loa-Hualalai-Mauna Kea-Kohala-Mahukona. The table is sorted by the age of each relative to one another (which is something everyone agrees on; coordinates are hard numbers ;) ) rather then those given by dating. ResMar 20:32, 4 August 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 22:21, 4 August 2010 [35].
- Nominator(s): LAAFan 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this this list because I feel it meets criteria. This uses the format of List of Kansas City Royals managers, a featured list. Thanks for the comments in advance. LAAFan 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a problem with Ref. #2. Please see Talk:List of Cleveland Indians managers#There should be a total of 7 former Cleveland managers in the Baseball Hall of Fame. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for a reference to replace the Baseball Reference citation, but I could not. I added an additional reference covering Gordon's election into the Hall of Fame.--LAAFan 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boom. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, thought you said you NEEDED an additional reference covering his election. Whoops. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Oppose
|
Resolved comments from Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment -
|
- Support - All my issues have been addressed. Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never brought this up before but given that the B-Ref HoF page notes whether someone was inducted as a player or manager, and given that this is a list of managers (making managerial HoF-status more important) could we get two colors/symbols for HoF managers vs. HoF players who managed? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a new symbol for Lopez (only one inducted as manager). This was used in List of Minnesota Twins managers--LAAFan 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cool, thanks. Could you note that Lopez is the only one to go in as a manager in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Support Cool, thanks. Could you note that Lopez is the only one to go in as a manager in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 4 August 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 22:21, 4 August 2010 [36].
- Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after a lot of work over the course of about a month, fueled mainly by a thorough peer review by Nomader, I believe it meets the current FL standards. Neither WikiProject Digimon nor I have any FLs under our belts, so I have worked hard on this list and expect to continue as necessary. Tezero (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
the link to Craig Harris leads to a dab page;no dead external links. Ucucha 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 18:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Tezero (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Sales figures that could be added (feel free to round the figures):
- Pocket Digimon World: 49,750 copies two weeks after its release [37]
- Sales figures greater than this are already listed. Tezero (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers: 34,142 copies three weeks after its release [38]Digimon World 2: 126,444 copies in Japan by September 2000 [39]Pocket Digimon World: Wind Battle Disc: 8,892 copies the week of its release [40]Digimon Adventure 02: D1 Tamers: 14,459 copies a day after its release [41]Digimon Digital Card Battle: 20,255 copies the week of its release [42]Pocket Digimon World: Cool & Nature Battle Disc: 5,022 copies the week of its release [43]Digimon Tamers: Pocket Culumon: 3821 copies the week of its release [44]Digimon Tamers: Digimon Medley: 12,884 copies the week of its release [45]Digimon Battle Spirit: 25,296 copies two weeks after its release [46]Digimon Story: Lost Evolution: 36,105 copies the week of its release [47]- Wasn't even aware this was out in Japan already... Fixed that too. Tezero (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the release date for Digimon Digital Card Battle is wrong, apparently. The source above says December 21, 2000 rather than December 22, 1999. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GameSpot source (the one used) says 1999. Tezero (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a few of these figures tonight but ultimately I'm too fatigued from events today to do them all tonight. I'll finish tomorrow. Thanks for finding them, by the way. Tezero (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Added all of them. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I know the GameFAQs/GameSpot release date database is considered a reliable source by the video game wikiproject, but personally I think it's never the best source available. Both the Famitsu source above and the official Japanese PlayStation website say December 21, 2000. I would rather trust these than the GameSpot partially user-submitted database. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Tezero (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the GameFAQs/GameSpot release date database is considered a reliable source by the video game wikiproject, but personally I think it's never the best source available. Both the Famitsu source above and the official Japanese PlayStation website say December 21, 2000. I would rather trust these than the GameSpot partially user-submitted database. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Consistently formatted reliable references, page in a readable format. Looks good enough to reach featured. I vote yes. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see anything wrong with it. However, I'm not really sure what the picture of the RPG booth is supposed to be about.--SexyKick 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to have a free image. I can remove it if you deem that necessary. Tezero (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessary, but try to keep your eye open for a better free image to replace it with in the future IMHO.--SexyKick 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Support per my comments at the peer review. Outstanding job, Tezero. Nomader (Talk) 18:31, 31 July 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 16:42, 2 August 2010 [48].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said I would like to write the Cubs list... I was expecting it to take weeks sitting on my radar of projects-not 36 hours. Well, after a sleepless night Saturday, it got produced in a blur. I'm not much of a baseball person, but I do have an affinity for Wrigleyville. Turns out the draft history of these "lovable losers" is fairly boring compared to some of the other teams, but I hope you enjoy any-ways. (I do have another nomination open, but it is sitting with two supports and no outstanding comments.) Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 14:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Canada Hky (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments - cool little list, a few things I noticed:
|
- Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Neat little list. Canada Hky (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments:
Everything else checks out. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually.. my support still stands, but could you put the images in draft chronological order? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple enough. Done. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually.. my support still stands, but could you put the images in draft chronological order? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comment yep, good stuff...
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Only thing I see is that Cubs in "The Cubs first-round selection in 1995" could use an apostrophe. Everything else looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent work. WereWolf (talk) 16:20, 31 July 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 16:42, 2 August 2010 [49].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but many of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support already, so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent stuff, just a few nitpicks:
2005 – according to the source, "Good Luck" features Lisa Kekaula; do you make distinctions like that on the list?
- I just say "and" as opposed to "featuring". If they had won, both would have received a Grammy award, so I think "and" is more inclusive. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2006 – according to the source, "Galvanize" featured Q-Tip, but you make no mention of that in the list.
- Done. Thank you for pointing this out--now sure how I missed that. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comment: "In 2003, the Academy moved the category from the "Pop" field into a new "Dance" field." So was the award called best pop recording originally? Didn't sound like it but this sentence seems to imply that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – "Gloria Estefan holds the record for the most nominations without a win, with three nominations." The last word is a bit of redundancy that can safely be removed.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Resolved issues; meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 03:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
|
- Comment: Do artists need to be linked multiple times in the same table? Example: Justin Timberlake twice right next to each other. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is necessary for sortable tables, because we can't always determine which Justin Timberlake table cell appears first. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked over the nom's other FLs, and apparently this is fine. Stands to reason, anyway. I think I will support this. Tezero (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is necessary for sortable tables, because we can't always determine which Justin Timberlake table cell appears first. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 31 July 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.