Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2011
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 22:45, 29 August 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit, HonorTheKing (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the raw data was already there before I started working on it, I've done a bit of work on the prose and on clarifying some issues, I've done some polishing and brought an untidy but informative list up to scratch. Now I think it's more or less ready. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
|
- Are "Total titles won by city" and "Total titles won by district" common statistics in sport contexts? Not sure what point theses lists want to make. After all it is a club which wins the title and the club has probably little connection to the city or district it is located in.
- They are there to demonstrate regional dominance; Tel Aviv is only one city in Israel, and yet far more titles have been won by its clubs than anywhere else. Surely that is worth noting? Also consider the flipside, that certain smaller towns may have had success due to a more involved local fanbase, for example. I disagree very strongly, incidentally, that a club has little connection to where it is located, but that's beside the point here. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the new mini-intros, I can see the point of having such lists. Just one more question: are there any RS that discuss the reason for the dominance of certain districts/cities? bamse (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in any of the ones I've been using so far, but I'll have a look to see if I can find anything new. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With the new mini-intros, I can see the point of having such lists. Just one more question: are there any RS that discuss the reason for the dominance of certain districts/cities? bamse (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are there to demonstrate regional dominance; Tel Aviv is only one city in Israel, and yet far more titles have been won by its clubs than anywhere else. Surely that is worth noting? Also consider the flipside, that certain smaller towns may have had success due to a more involved local fanbase, for example. I disagree very strongly, incidentally, that a club has little connection to where it is located, but that's beside the point here. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 23:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very good, well organized list. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering whether we can arrange the notes in a little more organized manner. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. More organised how? —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 16:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Just one from me: in the lead, Maccabi Tel Aviv being the only club never relegated could use a cite. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Support. I like this good list, but I think somebody should revise the palestine issue in it, maybe move that part in a independient article.--Feroang (talk) 03:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you like it, about the revise, there is an article about the Palestine League (1931–47), But if you referring the name "Palestine" in it - it is belong there, as it was founded by Eretz Israel FA (now Israel FA) and the PFA in the support of the British, FIFA and its sub-groups recognise it as predecessor of the Israeli league system and part of the champions.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you like it, about the revise, there is an article about the Palestine League (1931–47), But if you referring the name "Palestine" in it - it is belong there, as it was founded by Eretz Israel FA (now Israel FA) and the PFA in the support of the British, FIFA and its sub-groups recognise it as predecessor of the Israeli league system and part of the champions.
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Other than this it looks good. NapHit (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support NapHit (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, close to Support
- The URL of reference 17 is causing it to break. I think there is a way around it, but can't for the life of me remember what it is. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 17:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, it is now working.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, it is now working.
- 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 22:45, 29 August 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cortina. Originally scheduled to host the cancelled 1944 games, eventually hosted the Olympics 12 years later. This list of medal winners is, I hope, a nice compliment to the main FA on these Games. Courcelles 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Ref 1 has a date format different from the others. Why do some medal columns have a ref while others don't? What ref covers all medal winners? PumpkinSky talk 23:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the date, fixed. Team events are cited by country, individual ones are cited by event (look under the event column). As to a ref to all the medal winners, there really isn't such a beast, unless you want to deal with a 700 page PDF (the third general ref). Courcelles 23:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have an issue with File:Stig Sollander, Tony Sailer and Chiharu Chick Igaya 1956.jpg being in the article, for reasons I raised at commons:File talk:Stig Sollander, Tony Sailer and Chiharu Chick Igaya 1956.jpg. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, the uploader Commonsside did us no favours by merely liking to the image as a source, either. Yeah, that's going to be worth a DR over there at some point, unless there's proof forthcoming. Removed... and there is nothing to relpace it with. Cortina was a bad games for free photos, unfortunately. Courcelles 04:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead image of Sixten Jernberg was uploaded by the same user, and with a similar link as the source (i.e., direct to image). As 1964 was in Austria and not Sweden, it may be worth investigating that photo too. That said, it does give an author on that image, and the company/news organisation does appear to be Swedish. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bah. I have a feeling that per
{{PD-Italy}}, we're arguing over semantics, and not over images that are actually under copyright. Nevertheless, there is an image on Commons of Jernberg that is unmistakably valid, if less dramatic, so changed. Courcelles 04:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Probably the first one (of the three of them) could be PD-Italy, I guess; the second one you removed wouldn't have been though as 1964 was in Austria. Anyway, I suppose it's better to err on the side of caution. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the second one never would be PD-Italy, but I'm fairly sure the first one would have been, but without a real source, not much can be done, and no one really wants to re-argue PD-Italy Commonsside. I think we're squared away on the images now, even by a very conservative approach. Courcelles 04:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably the first one (of the three of them) could be PD-Italy, I guess; the second one you removed wouldn't have been though as 1964 was in Austria. Anyway, I suppose it's better to err on the side of caution. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bah. I have a feeling that per
- The lead image of Sixten Jernberg was uploaded by the same user, and with a similar link as the source (i.e., direct to image). As 1964 was in Austria and not Sweden, it may be worth investigating that photo too. That said, it does give an author on that image, and the company/news organisation does appear to be Swedish. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darn, the uploader Commonsside did us no favours by merely liking to the image as a source, either. Yeah, that's going to be worth a DR over there at some point, unless there's proof forthcoming. Removed... and there is nothing to relpace it with. Cortina was a bad games for free photos, unfortunately. Courcelles 04:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
— Parutakupiu (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My current nomination has two supports after 22 open days and no outstanding issues. This is the next in the series of Phillies lists; comments to be expediently addressed. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 01:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the policy on red links in FLs? Ideally there should not be any IMHO but what's the FL rule? PumpkinSky talk 01:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are acceptable (many of the other lists in this series have them). The criteria in question state that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing... a complete set of items" and that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". When this series of lists is considered as a whole, the proportion of redlinks is quite low. That said, once the FLCs are through and this (hopefully) passes FT, I will be using these lists as a link farm with the eventual goal of having all Phillies players with articles. I have ensured in the course of these nominations that the leads of each list have no redlinks by creating a number of player articles (see my recent DYKs). So there's no rush, and with only three redlinks, this is just fine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Personally I haven't put any redlinks in the two lists I've been working on, so that'll just be my personal rule. I also use only free images in them. Give me a little more time to look this over but at a glance it looks quite good. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, no problem. I don't particularly like redlinks either, but the list is "complete" and I think that's more important right now than having all the articles completed. All the images are free too, FWIW. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 02:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Personally I haven't put any redlinks in the two lists I've been working on, so that'll just be my personal rule. I also use only free images in them. Give me a little more time to look this over but at a glance it looks quite good. PumpkinSky talk 01:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red links are acceptable (many of the other lists in this series have them). The criteria in question state that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing... a complete set of items" and that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked". When this series of lists is considered as a whole, the proportion of redlinks is quite low. That said, once the FLCs are through and this (hopefully) passes FT, I will be using these lists as a link farm with the eventual goal of having all Phillies players with articles. I have ensured in the course of these nominations that the leads of each list have no redlinks by creating a number of player articles (see my recent DYKs). So there's no rush, and with only three redlinks, this is just fine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I compared this to the FL Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (A) as a starter for review and with the excuse that I'm pretty new at this, I can't find anything wrong here. Nice work. The only suggestion is to make the tables sections so that you don't have to open the whole article in edit mode to edit the tables. PumpkinSky talk 23:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the FLC for the "A" list, which was right at the time when the current ACCESS requirements were being implemented for the first time, the section headers were deemed unnecessary because they are duplicates of the table captions. The edit functionality is something I miss too but it's fine the way it is. — KV5 • Talk • 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Greasy's caption: "as an American football layer " missing a p, although I suppose we'll have plenty of those in the next list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha. Done. — KV5 • Talk • 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Su--ort. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HA. Even better. — KV5 • Talk • 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (just to be clear!) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HA. Even better. — KV5 • Talk • 21:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Su--ort. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing to gripe about. Courcelles 18:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a while since I've been here, for a variety of reasons, but recently I have felt like doing something different and I believe that this article meets all relevant criteria to become a featured list. If anyone has any queries or spots a mistake then I'll endeavour to correct them as quickly as I can. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 00:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 21:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support –
"and entered its first major international competition later that year; the qualifying rounds for the 1992 UEFA European Football Championship." Semi-colon would be better off as a colon.- Done.
A bunch of references have hyphens that should be converted to en dashes.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I think I've got them all.
Thanks for the review. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments. Couple of picky things is all.
- In the lead, suggest spelling out UEFA and FIFA the first time they're used, with the abbreviation in brackets. The non-football reader might possibly be thrown by the Faroes joining FIFA, which happens to share its initials with the Faroe Islands FA.
- Done.
- In the Results Key, could you wikilink Own goal.
- Done.
In the Scorers column, would the dashes look better left-aligned with the scorers? this may be just a matter of personal taste.
Matter of interest, if anyone reading this who knows why empty cells have to contain a dash could point me towards the relevant guideline, I'd be grateful.
**I did have them blank initially and then added centred emdashes when KV5 said it would be preferable.
- In the Att column, could you display n/k rather than an emdash where the attendance figure is unknown? to me, the dash implies none, or inapplicable, rather than unknown.
- Done.
- You won't like this one. Do you think the home/away/neutral code should have its own column, for sortability?
- If the table wasn't so wide then I probably would have. Venues and competitions would be squashed into multiple rows and I'm not a fan of that.
- The 1996 Yugoslavia games should show the FR Yugoslavia flag, not the SFR, which wasn't used after 1992.
{{fb|FR Yugoslavia}}works:
FR Yugoslavia
- Thanks for that. God bless flags. They met in 2001 as well so I've changed them too.
cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, always appreciated. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Appears to meet criteria, and nominator has, as usual, been prompt and willing to respond to reviewers' valid concerns. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
These were the only two faults I could find with the list, once they are rectified I'll be glad to support. NapHit (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support All my quandaries have been suitably addressed, great work. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, close to Support: The sorting on the "Score" column seems a bit random. May I suggest using {{sort}} to sort by goal margin for (+1, +2) and against (-1, -2)? So for example a 1–0 win would be sorted as "+1" and a 2–3 loss as "–1". Just an idea. Otherwise looks great. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 19:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that. It'll take a while and I'm short of time tonight, but I'll have it done tomorrow. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff. If it's a heavy load I'm happy to help you out. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, how does it look? Thanks for the offer of help. It didn't take too long. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sorting was still funny, but I fixed it. It uses letters now; 0=n, –1=o, +1=m and so on. I'm upgrading to support; well done! —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 13:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, how does it look? Thanks for the offer of help. It didn't take too long. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good stuff. If it's a heavy load I'm happy to help you out. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria as it incorporates comments from previous lists on the same topic of SEC head football coaches (List of Alabama Crimson Tide head football coaches and List of Tennessee Volunteers head football coaches). Any and all comments are greatly appreciated and thanks in advance to all who take a peek at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Comments from KV5
- Can you please clarify what you would like to see? I am not sure what exactly you are looking for as this is patterned exactly after the Alabama and Tennessee lists that were promoted to FL previously. Any help would be great! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those lists were promoted before the ACCESS table standards were updated. The tutorial provides in-depth directions, but what is needed here are row headers, scope parameters, and table captions at minimum. — KV5 • Talk • 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will continue to work on this and let you know when I think I have it correct in the next day or so. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I swapped the key altogether for the Template:List of college football program head coaches key that I have since been made aware of, and think I have updated the table accordingly to the new standards. If it needs more tweaking, please let me know. If it looks good, I will make the appropriate changes to previously FL's I have submitted on the same topic. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good except that there are no row headers yet. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I finally got this down. Thank you for your patience and for taking a look at this again! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's done it. Swell. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I finally got this down. Thank you for your patience and for taking a look at this again! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good except that there are no row headers yet. — KV5 • Talk • 11:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I swapped the key altogether for the Template:List of college football program head coaches key that I have since been made aware of, and think I have updated the table accordingly to the new standards. If it needs more tweaking, please let me know. If it looks good, I will make the appropriate changes to previously FL's I have submitted on the same topic. Thanks again! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will continue to work on this and let you know when I think I have it correct in the next day or so. Thanks! Patriarca12 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those lists were promoted before the ACCESS table standards were updated. The tutorial provides in-depth directions, but what is needed here are row headers, scope parameters, and table captions at minimum. — KV5 • Talk • 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One dead link.
- Link fixed.
Can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 23:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. — KV5 • Talk • 00:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - very good, but is it "postseason" or "post-season"? Possibly need to check your other lists for this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is definitely "Postseason" and I have fixed that on all of the SEC lists. Can't believe I haven't caught that before! Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Conditional Support –
I will support this on the following two conditions:
Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
My concerns have been addressed. Changing to support Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 14:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- The key table looks horrible. Other than adding header scopes ( ! scope="col" | and ! scope="row" | ), I see no reason why the previous key would fail the new WP:ACCESS standards.
- Ultimately I will defer to whatever consensus is reached, but I feel the template version does look better, presents the information in an easy to follow, uniform manner and will utilize it in both past and future coaches' lists I work on if this will work for FLs.
- NThomas, the current key table looks horrible? Patriarca12 worked in Template:List of college football program head coaches key, which will standardize the tables for these kind of lists. Please take a look at the template and let me know if you have issues with it. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the template can be rewritten to hide unused parameters, one of the things brought up over and over here with past FLCs, there's going to be a lot of lists with extraneous abbreviations for parameters not even used. Since this really doesn't pertain to this FLC though, I've started a new section on the template's talk page about my concerns about the template itself. NThomas (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NThomas, the current key table looks horrible? Patriarca12 worked in Template:List of college football program head coaches key, which will standardize the tables for these kind of lists. Please take a look at the template and let me know if you have issues with it. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened to the section headers?
- Not quite sure what happened there, but fixed now. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Template:Southeastern Conference football coach navbox needs to be included on this list since the template links to it and other SEC HC lists, not the program.
NThomas (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added Patriarca12 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. For the most part, I've attempted to double source the awards using one primary and one secondary citation (some were difficult to find one RS, let alone two). Hope everyone enjoys reading about the second best film of 2003! Ruby2010 comment! 03:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Crystal Clear x3 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Crystal Clear x3 04:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support after some minor tweaks. Another great FL contribution from Ruby. Crystal Clear x3 00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
| Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Legolas2186
These are some concerns I have. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Reference 43, what is happening with the directing?
- You mean the direction to IMDb? The primary website for the actual award tells visitors to see the winners at IMDb. I thought the ref formatting I provided seemed the best way to indicate this (with Crystal's apparent agreement). Ruby2010 comment! 04:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not exactly sure how reliable it would be if the source is asking us to look over to IMDB.
- Well it's the direct website for the Motion Picture Sound Editors, so the site is reliable. It looks like they're under construction, and are using IMDb until the website is finished. That's a good indicator of how reliable IMDb is in this case, if I ever saw one. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you archived the award lists in general? They tend to go red pretty fast. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will do so soon Ruby2010 comment! 14:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list is of fine quality now, and passes FLC? criterias. I am happy to support it. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support - Looks great, I see no further problems preventing FL status. Good job. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm I am surprised all the prior reviewers missed this, but the dates in "date of ceremony" column are not consistent; some are ymd, some dmy, etc, some have commas some don't, etc. They should all be consistent. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Fixed Ruby2010 comment! 01:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I was just wondering why the dates in the table are dmy, but the dates in the references (and lead) aren't in the same format? - JuneGloom Talk 15:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recently converted all the table dates to DMY, but forgot to check the lead. Thanks for catching it. Ruby2010 comment! 15:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:45, 29 August 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 05:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists that have bee promoted. Thank you for your time and feedback, reviewers. (This list is a companion to Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male, also currently listed at FLC. I hope two support votes is enough to allow a second nomination.) --Another Believer (Talk) 05:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope this helps. — KV5 • Talk • 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 19:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why is there a column for Nationality when they're all American and the award hasn't existed for 20 years? PumpkinSky talk 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the Grammy lists that have been promoted to FL (as far as I can recall) display the Nationality column. I am not sure how the 20-year threshold comes into play; feel free to provide an explanation if there is a policy I am not familiar with. I did go ahead and remove the sort feature on the Nationality column since all entries are the same and so that the list is consistent with Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Male. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt there's a policy on this but it seemes odd to include it when they're all from the same country. As for 20 years, if they haven't ressurrected it by now, they probably won't for a long time. But eh. PumpkinSky talk 01:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In the lead section it reads that Fitzgerald won the first award for Digital III at Montreux, but in the table says that it was for A Perfect Match. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great catch! Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After that correction, I support this nomination. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:03, 22 August 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it sufficiently lists DLSU people and I think it meets FL guidelines. Moray An Par (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from — Bill william comptonTalk 11:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Support: I've no more issues. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A support
, after – are added to refs 154, 156, and 141.Albacore (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment several names redirect, either due to different capitalisation (del instead of Del), different name (Tommy instead of Tomas), missing diacritics (e.g. Yohei Kono), different spelling (Mundel redirects to Mundell). Can all these be resolved please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment: Rafael Buenaventura's pic was deleted so that needs to be removed. I'm a bit concerned about the high level of redlinks as well, but given that the descriptions show clear notability, I'm not going to fret over them. Aside from that, I'll support when Dabomb's concerns are addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: This list looks like it meets the criteria and is well done overall.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:19, 21 August 2011 [9].
- Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, another list for you guys! Presenting: a list of every game Square Enix has developed or published since its inception in 2003 in one big sortable list. With 256 citations, the reference list is longer than most articles, but it means that everything is cited. Have at it! --PresN 20:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of Square Enix will need to be sourced, e.g. "The company was formed from the merger between Square and Enix on April 1, 2003."
- Done. --PresN 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I correct to assume that this list and the list of downloadable games do not share entries?
- Correct. --PresN 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the list, decide whether you are wikilinking all instances of "Arcade game", "Think Garage", etc. I believe the answer should be yes because this is a sortable table. The only exception might be "Square Enix", which I think is overlinked and should only appear in the prose.
- I always link everything in sortable tables; I'm open to dropping the links to Square Enix, though. --PresN 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the examples I listed have mixed linked/unlinked usage. You should be able to spot this easily by resorting each column. There may be others I missed. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. Fixed. --PresN 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some thinking on Drilnoth's comment regarding the release date. I guess the important thing to consider is whether the first date of release is the only one that matters. I haven't checked, but it's possible one game could be released outside Japan first, but it's still a first release. However, listing out all the release dates can give the reader an indication of that video game's release schedule. I have no particular objection with leaving it this way though. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 03:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Drilnoth |
|---|
|
Comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, seems like a pretty good list. Meets WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 11:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Nomader (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
This is an excellent list, and with the exception of a few problems, a job well done. Nomader (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support: the lead was my main issue with the list, and I hadn't anticipated it being remedied so quickly. Well done. I have no other objections, and looking over it once more, I'm happy to lend my support. Nomader (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – All caps in reference 22 should be removed.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --PresN 18:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:19, 21 August 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last of the set of featured lists of National Treasures of Japan. It covers among others poetry collections, prose works and historical chronicles written in Japan. The list has been modelled on other featured lists of National Treasures of Japan. bamse (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Basic comments Check the bibliography section like your previous nomination. There are full dates for some of the book sources, and in some there is just the year. Similar for accessdate. I presume this is because of using the reftag tool? — Legolas (talk2me) 14:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. All publication dates are now year only, and all have accessdates in the same style. bamse (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More basic comments The lead feels a little too long, and goes beyond the scope and inclusion criteria in the list, but the information is good and I think will be engaging to readers. Could I suggest moving the second, large paragraph (After the introduction of writing from Korea...) to a new section below the lead, perhaps either before or after the Statistics section (I'm not sure where it would be more appropriate). I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead does not feel too long for me. Its length is comparable to other long articles such as Seattle. Furthermore it agrees with the recommendation in the MOS. The second paragraph summarizes the development of Japanese literature and mentions the various genres that are discussed in more detail in later sections of the article. As such it summarizes the article and puts the various genres (or sections) in context; which I consider the purpose of a lead section. For these reasons, I would prefer not to move the second paragraph out of the lead section. bamse (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I didn't know MOS made recommendation for lead length, so thanks for showing me that. You are right then, in that the section should remain in the lead. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead does not feel too long for me. Its length is comparable to other long articles such as Seattle. Furthermore it agrees with the recommendation in the MOS. The second paragraph summarizes the development of Japanese literature and mentions the various genres that are discussed in more detail in later sections of the article. As such it summarizes the article and puts the various genres (or sections) in context; which I consider the purpose of a lead section. For these reasons, I would prefer not to move the second paragraph out of the lead section. bamse (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Eisfbnore • talk 05:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Sources comments
Otherwise it looks fine, and the research and work you have put into this list (and many others) is impressive Bamse. All the best, Eisfbnore • talk 12:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the time to check each sentence in this list for close paraphrasing, but I'll note the few I find below. A tip to avoid close paraphrasing is to write from muliple sources and move content between sentences.
To be honest, that was actually the only one I was able to find, and it does seem easy to get rid of. Well done! Eisfbnore • talk 18:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. Please see my comments above and let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. bamse (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - outstanding work, and amazingly accesible to a layman like me. Eisfbnore • talk 05:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlinks?
This is a minor point, but I noticed there were some redlinks in the bibilography (e.g. Ishikawa Prefectural Museum of Art, Seikadō Bunko Art Museum, Yōmei Bunko, Nabeshima Hōkōkai). I don't think it's necessarily bad to have red links, but are all these articles likely be to created in the future? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, as locations/owners of National Treasures of Japan, these are relevant entities that will likely get an article in the future. In fact I am planning to have articles on all temples/shrines/museums that house or own National Treasures. Recently I wrote: Shōjō-ji, Hatakeyama Memorial Museum of Fine Art, Anraku-ji (Ueda), and Omura Shrine. There are other wikipedia users (e.g. User:663highland, User:Tenmei) creating such articles as well, so I am quite optimistic that this goal will be achieved in the not too distant future. bamse (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support As my comments have been addressed and concerns were fairly rebutted, I am more than happy to support the FL nomination. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 23:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is one hell of a work. I had looked into it for quite some time, but did not find anything thwarting its promotion for me. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 03:59, 17 August 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): GlanisTalk 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it now meets the FL criteria, and it would be nice to have a few more articles/lists of featured quality from the schools project. GlanisTalk 07:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish that all school alumni sections or articles could be this good. However, to me, one thing that stops it from being featured list quality is the reliance on the school's own website for a large number of the references. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent a little bit of time now, and found additional references for the majority of those listed, so the list is now down to 6 referenced solely by the school website (down from about 15) and I'm working on the rest. GlanisTalk 16:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment
- References 4, 6, 10, 23, 26, 42, 57, need access dates if they were taken from the internet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, except for the last one, 57, as that is not actually taken from the online version of the book since the book is not freely available on Google Books. The link is just there for further reading purposes. Thanks, GlanisTalk 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: Please review possible image policy issues with these files: [13], [14], [15]. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With images 1 & 3 (Geroge Abbot & Arthur Onslow) which are subject to the copyright claim from the NPG, I was of the opinion that the community has decided that until a successful case is brought against the defendant they were ok for use, as the images are hosted in the US where there is no copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art (since the US does not recognise the "sweat of the brow" doctrine that is present in UK copyright law). So I therefore assumed that using these two images was ok? GlanisTalk 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the second image (Lloyd-Morgan) There is a good chance that the image is now in the public domain, but I will however email the University of Bristol to enquire as to its status and I have removed it from the article until this is cleared up. Thanks GlanisTalk 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Parkhurst J: Please link 'marian' to the appropriate page (avoiding the DAB page). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Victor Willing: Expand. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no glaring issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Impressive list and nicely formatted, but I have to ask if Simon Lazenby qualifies here? Being a Yank, I am not familiar with him, so he might be fine, though as a red link, he jumps out as possibly not meeting notability (I am pretty sure the other red link is fine). Just checking? LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, now I've had a proper look, I don't think he does. There are a few sources, but very little about him, more just his thoughts. I've taken him out for now. GlanisTalk 13:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very nice. PumpkinSky talk 23:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has Kudpung been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just asked him now. GlanisTalk 18:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the delay in responding. Apart from the tag on File:Lloyd-Morgan.jpg which still appears to need attention, I have no further issues and will certainly support the FL when this has been resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still waiting to hear back from Bristol University re copyright on that (although i'm not hopeful), so as a result that image has been removed from the article. GlanisTalk 19:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the delay in responding. Apart from the tag on File:Lloyd-Morgan.jpg which still appears to need attention, I have no further issues and will certainly support the FL when this has been resolved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Any issues I was aware of or brought to attention have been resolved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 16 August 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this list for FL status because I believe it meets all criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related lists that have bee promoted. Thank you for your time and feedback, reviewers. Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – but one suggestion: I would add the link "Grammy Award for Best Jazz Vocal Performance, Female" in the "See also" section. It allows to speedy navigate to the female award, as the navbox below doesn't do it properly.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 21:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support and for the suggestion. However, the article is already linked in the lead, so I do not think it should be added to the See also section. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support can't find anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"In 1992, the two categories were combined and presented as the category Best Jazz Vocal Album. This category was later renamed to Best Jazz Vocal Album beginning in 2001." I don't get it. Looks like the same name to me.
- Corrected. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the table's Work column, Round Midnight isn't sorting in the proper order. It's sorting before the As.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The song's title contains a "'", as in slang for "around". Certainly willing to remove the punctuation mark for sorting purposes if preferred or required by MoS. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 17:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 19:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another great job AB. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Legolas! The two Jazz Vocal Performance lists have been on my "to do" list for a while now, so I am glad to finally see them at FLC. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s): — Bill william comptonTalk 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive (in my opinion) and also fulfills other criteria. Thank you for your time and feedback. — Bill william comptonTalk 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Andrewstalk 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
—Andrewstalk 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nice list —Andrewstalk 01:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment – Don't italicize online website names and check the en-dashing of reference titles. Otherwise the list looks fine. I will comment again. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support the promotion of the list now. Nice work Bill, hope to see more of those old Asian Games lists. :) — Legolas (talk2me) 14:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 23:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
![[13]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:George_Abbot_from_NPG_cropped.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Lloyd-Morgan.jpg){kind=link}
![[15]](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Arthur_Onslow_by_Hans_Hysing.jpg){kind=link}
- Support — KV5 • Talk • 01:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Should gzapg2010.cn (Official website of the Games) be written as such in the ref formatting? Wouldn't Guangzhou 2010 Asian Para Games be better? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the documentation of {{Cite web}} template:
- work: In most cases this is the name of the website (as usually given in the logo/banner area of the site), otherwise the site's domain name (without the leading "www." part). If the titled item being cited is part of some other larger work, such as a book, periodical or organizational sub-site (e.g., the law school's section of a university's website system), it is usually better to use the name of that more specific work than that of the entire site. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
- publisher: The name of the entity that publishes (owns or controls) the website. Commonly, this is a government agency, educational institution, or business. For many websites, the author and publisher are the same, and only one needs to be included in the citation; prefer publisher for organizations, author (or first/last) for individuals. Please note that publisher is not the name of the website; that is the work, except in cases where the business name is identical to the site name. For example, the corporation Walmart is the publisher of the website at walmart.com, which is the work.
- I hope you will know the answer.
- I hope you weren't trying to insult me ;). I think this is one of cases where the business name is identical to the site name. And the banner does say the name of the games, which would be assumed to be the name of the site. But then again, I have no idea why walmart.com would be the "work=". So that means any site research is done from should should have the domain name? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I didn't have any such intention, I apologize if you feel that way. As the issue is contentious, I've removed work parameter. Does it look good to you now? — Bill william comptonTalk 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naw, I didn't mean that in a serious way. As for the italics and parameters, it looks good now. Let me put in some consideration before I put in a vote though. Thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I didn't have any such intention, I apologize if you feel that way. As the issue is contentious, I've removed work parameter. Does it look good to you now? — Bill william comptonTalk 13:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you weren't trying to insult me ;). I think this is one of cases where the business name is identical to the site name. And the banner does say the name of the games, which would be assumed to be the name of the site. But then again, I have no idea why walmart.com would be the "work=". So that means any site research is done from should should have the domain name? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My dispute was resolved. Very well developed prose and other FL criteria. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions about the resolution of Killervogel5's comments about MOS:DTT above:
- Why is a table caption mandatory in this instance, when the entire article is about the table? It just looks silly to have "Medal table" appear as a caption, which appears in the "Medal table" section of the "2010 Asian Para Games medal table" article. How many times do we have to label the medal table?
- Why is a row header necessary? The whole point of {{RankedMedalTable}} is that you can sort by different criteria, so highlighting the "Rank" column with bold text and darker table cell colour is contrary to that. The "Good example of headers structure" in the MOS:DTT tutorial does not utilize row headers, so I don't think they're necessary here.
Note that I have added scope="col" to the column headers ot RankedMedalTable, so the thousands of transclusions of that template will be updated shortly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A response to both. The short answer is that the caption and row-headers are necessary because MOS says so. The longer answers are slightly more complicated. The table caption currently labeling the table as "medal table" is poor; the caption should describe the table's content for a non-sighted reader. A better caption in this case would be "List of participating nations, showing the number of gold, silver, and bronze medals won". The row headers also provide for non-sighted readers, as a screen reader will then read the row in the correct order if the sorting is changed. The table cannot simply be considered in its initial state. The vast majority of FLs use sortable tables; indeed, the criteria state that a featured list is "easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities". Please do not see the headers as a highlight, as they are not. They are an indicator that this is the primary entry in the row. In this case, I actually believe that the country is the primary entry, not the rank, so that should probably be examined. If the bold is a problem, inserting the "plainrowheaders" attribute in the table class will remove the bold; I happen to think that it is much less obtrusive in cases like this. — KV5 • Talk • 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- done
- Please reconsider your edit. It was bizzare to use
<th>HTML markup (via the wikitable "!" syntax) for the Rank column; it is worse to use it for the second column. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You have consider what is the key element of data in each line, and without the country, the other items are irrelevant. So for screen reading software, the country is the most obvious choice. Perhaps we should ask User:RexxS to comment as he is usually quite clued up on this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrwsc, I've got no option left. TRM, do I need to ask RexxS? — Bill william comptonTalk 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't be a bad idea, getting someone who is very up on WP:ACCESS issues to have a look at it and perhaps explain more clearly where we're coming from. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrwsc, I've got no option left. TRM, do I need to ask RexxS? — Bill william comptonTalk 10:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have consider what is the key element of data in each line, and without the country, the other items are irrelevant. So for screen reading software, the country is the most obvious choice. Perhaps we should ask User:RexxS to comment as he is usually quite clued up on this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reconsider your edit. It was bizzare to use
The table at present is marked up about as well as it can be for accessibility - well done to the nominator for taking on board these issues.
@Andrwsc: modern screen readers provide the ability to navigate a table in different ways, for example a blind reader may want to go down the row of gold medals and hear how many were gained. If there is no row header marked up they will hear "Gold, 185"; "Gold, 32"; "Gold, 27", etc. as they move down the column; or the screen reader software may take a guess that the first column contains row header info, so they would hear "Gold, 1, 185"; "Gold, 2, 32"; "Gold, 3, 27", etc. However, if we mark up the 'Nation' column as a row header (i.e. <th> in html) and give it the row scope, then the blind reader can hear "Gold, China (CHN), 185"; "Gold, Japan (JPN), 32"; "Gold, South Korea (KOR), 27", etc. Surely you would agree that is far better accessibility for the visually-impaired? Have a look at HTML Tables with JAWS and MAGic for a good description of how a popular screen reader (JAWS) can be set to interact with properly marked-up tables.
- For a screen reader to navigate by reading down a column as you describe, is a row header and row scope necessary? It really looks silly for these columns to have the darker background color (since the default CSS style for
<th>is different from<td>). I note that the "Good example of headers structure" at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Correct headers structure does not utilize row headers, so what makes this medal table different that it requires them? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You asked this question before. An answer was already provided. Regardless of whether the table tutorial (which is just an instructional guide, not an all-inclusive policy or guideline) contains this type of header structure, this table does require it, and that's because of the actual WP:ACCESS portion of the Manual of Style. Your question to RexxS leads me to believe that you are still viewing this header markup as a simple aesthetic change which you do not favor; I implore you not to think of it this way. I didn't like it either at first, but I volunteered to make an FLC for which I was responsible a testcase for the implementation of this standard, and I am now convinced of its worth. Some may cite WP:IAR as a reason not to implement these because they "look silly". However, it's not within the spirit of IAR because this is not "[preventing] you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; indeed, not implementing it hinders Wikipedia's development into a tool as an encyclopedia that everyone (including non-sighted users) can use. — KV5 • Talk • 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't. "Because MOS says so" is an utterly useless answer. The MOS gives "good" examples of tables without row headers, so it appears as though only column headers are necessary. But perhaps that's besides the point. I do understand the accessibility considerations described here, and I can see the utility to read the table column-wise per the example from RexxS. However, my question is whether or not the screen reader requirements depend on the <th> markup or is the scope declaration sufficient? I'm asking if the aesthetic effect of the table header can be decoupled from the semantic meaning. It really looks bad for a row header to appear in the middle of the table. Clearly the intent of the darker color for header cells is intended for the top-most row and the left-most column. Is there any way to satisfy the accessibility requirements without coloring the "Nation" column differently? Your suggestion to use the
plainrowheadersclass to remove the bold header text is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for, but with respect to cell color instead of font style. Should.wikitable.plainrowheadersin MediaWiki:Common.css also includebackground-color: #f9f9f9;? Or should we addstyle="background:#f9f9f9"to each nation entry in the table? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't. "Because MOS says so" is an utterly useless answer. The MOS gives "good" examples of tables without row headers, so it appears as though only column headers are necessary. But perhaps that's besides the point. I do understand the accessibility considerations described here, and I can see the utility to read the table column-wise per the example from RexxS. However, my question is whether or not the screen reader requirements depend on the <th> markup or is the scope declaration sufficient? I'm asking if the aesthetic effect of the table header can be decoupled from the semantic meaning. It really looks bad for a row header to appear in the middle of the table. Clearly the intent of the darker color for header cells is intended for the top-most row and the left-most column. Is there any way to satisfy the accessibility requirements without coloring the "Nation" column differently? Your suggestion to use the
- You asked this question before. An answer was already provided. Regardless of whether the table tutorial (which is just an instructional guide, not an all-inclusive policy or guideline) contains this type of header structure, this table does require it, and that's because of the actual WP:ACCESS portion of the Manual of Style. Your question to RexxS leads me to believe that you are still viewing this header markup as a simple aesthetic change which you do not favor; I implore you not to think of it this way. I didn't like it either at first, but I volunteered to make an FLC for which I was responsible a testcase for the implementation of this standard, and I am now convinced of its worth. Some may cite WP:IAR as a reason not to implement these because they "look silly". However, it's not within the spirit of IAR because this is not "[preventing] you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"; indeed, not implementing it hinders Wikipedia's development into a tool as an encyclopedia that everyone (including non-sighted users) can use. — KV5 • Talk • 00:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a screen reader to navigate by reading down a column as you describe, is a row header and row scope necessary? It really looks silly for these columns to have the darker background color (since the default CSS style for
The only improvement I can think of would be to drop the use of {{flagIOC2team}} and separate the name of the country into its own cell, which would then be marked as the row header, since that would remove the repetition of the country abbreviation each time when spoken by the screen reader. However, that is a minor gain for considerable effort in this case, so I wouldn't bother to request it.
I'd be happy to Support this list as a good example of how accessibility can be implemented. I ought to mention that in the [[File:]] syntax, the parameter for alt-text has to be |alt= because the wikimedia software does not recognise |Alt= (I've fixed that for you) - hope that's ok. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): Crystal Clear x3 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believer that it meets the FL criteria. Crystal Clear x3 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am not going to be on here frequently so it will likely take some time for me to respond to comments from users here. Please do not close this nomination!!! Same applies for my 127 Hours FLC. Thanks you Crystal Clear x3 08:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010
| Resolved comments from — Ruby2010 comment! 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*
done
fixed
done
done
fixed
done
done
done
done - Ruby2010 comment! 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nice work, Ruby2010 comment! 21:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noticed the article is basically an orphan. Could you link it from a few other articles? Ruby2010 comment! 17:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just one quick one from me: try to avoid having a sentence start with a number, like in "14 year-old Steinfeld...". In this case you can bend WP:MOSNUM a bit and start it as "Fourteen-year-old Steinfeld...".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Crystal Clear x3 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
done
done
done
done
done
done
fixed
done
done
done
done
done |
CommentIn the general reference (the NYTIMES article), there is a nominationation listed that states "Best Picture - 2010 National Board of Review". I can't find it in this list. Is it included? --Cheetah (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, Done Crystal Clear x3 09:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you positive that this list is complete? ...that all accolodates that were received by this film are included in this list?--Cheetah (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just looked over the movie's official website (where they have a section all about its reviews and noms/wins) and added two noms, both from the Motion Picture Sound Editors, that I missed. I now feel confident that I have included all of its noms/wins. Crystal Clear x3 09:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 09:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just looked over the movie's official website (where they have a section all about its reviews and noms/wins) and added two noms, both from the Motion Picture Sound Editors, that I missed. I now feel confident that I have included all of its noms/wins. Crystal Clear x3 09:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you positive that this list is complete? ...that all accolodates that were received by this film are included in this list?--Cheetah (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, Done Crystal Clear x3 09:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support made a couple of minor changes, and I have a general question about the award/nom infobox but I'll ask it centrally. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [19].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The next Phillies list, and also the largest, at 200 players. Cheers in advance. — KV5 • Talk • 21:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support no more issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Jose Mesa has diacritics in the photo caption and table, but not in the lead.Russ Meyer photo caption: Last word should be plural; make "season" into "seasons".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Both done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both done. — KV5 • Talk • 02:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support very nice and surprised this hasn't become FL yet. PumpkinSky talk 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noms usually last around a month on average right now. There's no rush. I'm patient :) — KV5 • Talk • 21:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [20].
- Nominator(s): Hassan514 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the list is comprehensive and meets FL criteria Hassan514 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many issues.
- The first line in the lead should summarize the contents of the discography including how many studio albums, EPs, singles etc she has released.
- done
- There's no alternate text.
- done
- She released four singles from the album of which, "Love Story", charted at No. 1 on Billboard Hot Dance --> Grammatical error with commas
- done
- There's no linkage of other appearances and writing credits in the infobox.
- done
- Sometimes references for chart positions are along side the chart numbers, sometimes along side the chart. No consistency.
- done
- Unreferenced content abundant.
- Messy references. Why would Billboard be published by Rovi? It was published by Nielsen Business Media uptill January 2010, from then its Prometheus Global Media.
I can go on and on and on. Fact is, this is nowhere close to FL class yet. I strongly suggest you go through a WP:PR and check recent discography FLs to get more points. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see that Hassan has definitely done some good work on the discography. I would like to see further work in improving the lead. I am not opposing this submission now, just that I need a little time to see whether I find the article to be of FL quality. Delegates, when you are closing the nomination, if I haven't commented, please remind me. — Legolas (talk2me) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made changes to the lead and expanded it further. Hopefully it is much more suitable now. Hassan514 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, Hassan has really done a nice job expanding and cleaning up the article. I support this promotion now. Nice job. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- Lead:
- The first sentence should describe her discography. (one studio album, three compilation albums... etc.)
- done fixed
- You say she has a remix album, why isn't there a section farther down showing that?
- Queen of clubs trilogy are the remix albums
- Many writing issues. It needs a copy edit.
- done Fixed as many as I could see
- The first sentence should describe her discography. (one studio album, three compilation albums... etc.)
- Album sections:
- According to the style guide, the format is incorrect. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Samples for the correct style.
- done
- Link CD and digital download.
- done
- Be consistent with dates. You have month, day and year in the studio albums section, but you only have the month and day in the compilation albums.
- done
- According to the style guide, the format is incorrect. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Discographies/style#Samples for the correct style.
- Singles section
- A discography shows releases, if a song hasn't been released, it shouldn't be here.
- done Sorry, didn't realised that. I saw that in Sophie Ellis-Bextor discography a while back and that's why I did it.
- The references should be in the top of the chart, not next to the peak.
- done Didn't know how to compile them together as they were multiple links, hence I posted them there. Fixed that
- A discography shows releases, if a song hasn't been released, it shouldn't be here.
- As featured artist section
- The parentheses stuff should go underneath the song, according to the style guide.
- done
- Once again, the references should be in the top of the table.
- done
- The parentheses stuff should go underneath the song, according to the style guide.
- Music videos section
- Need references saying Jelle directed the two videos.
- not done There's no references to them available anywhere on YouTube or anywhere else I knew to look. I had to contact Armada Music, the label which released the tracks and they told me who directed the videos. I only have the email from their press point of contact to verify these details.
- Re-format the table to look similar to the style guide.
- done
- Need references saying Jelle directed the two videos.
- Other appearances section
- the "a" in appearances should not be capitalized.
- done
- Is the notes section really needed?
- Removed it, the only reason I did it was because of her uncredited appearance on "Deeper Underground" since I couldn't find any reference which mentions her vocals were sampled, I thought I should remove it.
- the "a" in appearances should not be capitalized.
- Is the writing credits important enough to be noted here? The style guide says "Releases by other artists as a tribute or cover." should not be included.
- The song is not a cover. It was a song written by her and performed by another artist on Tritonal's debut studio album.
- References section
- I see this a lot. Incorrect formatting. Websites should not be italicized. Put two apostrophes before and after to cancel it out.
- done
- It shouldn't be "Billboard charts" nor is Billboard published by Rovi Corporation.
- done. Sorry I got that confused, I went to look at it again and stupidly missed the part "content partly provided by Rovi"
- The dates should be formatted the same in the article. Always stay consistent.
- done
- I see this a lot. Incorrect formatting. Websites should not be italicized. Put two apostrophes before and after to cancel it out.
This is a long, long away from a FL. There are more issues in the article. Try doing a Peer Review. I will help with the article, if you want. Contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Michael Jester (talk) 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed most of the issues mentioned here. As far as referencing some things are concerned, I can only think of the album and singles release dates. Her music is mostly not mentioned on allmusic and the only places I can link here is discogs, beatport and itunes, which as far as I know are WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Ideally, I would hope I can do as much now to get this nomination passed. But if there is a lot more than what you guys have suggested, I'll wait and get a peer review done. Thanks a lot for your feedback! Hassan514 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Wow. Congrats on fixing up the article, it looks nice. I think I'm going to have to say Support on this one. Everything that I've seen looks spot on.
—Michael Jester (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Congrats on fixing up the article, it looks nice. I think I'm going to have to say Support on this one. Everything that I've seen looks spot on.
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Still see a few references with a faulty hyphen in the title which should be an en dash (current refs 4, 8, and 40; the numbers have changed since my original comments). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (with a comment): Singles that haven't been released or charted in a country are tagged similarly (with a "—"). I don't know if this is common usage on this type of pages, but wouldn't this distinction be important to highlight? Parutakupiu (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so sure about that, this is a standard used by WikiProject Discographies so perhaps they're the best people who can talk more about it. I've simply followed their guidelines in creating this discography. Hassan514 (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:36, 11 August 2011 [21].
The first nomination failed because Giants and Ramblin' Man were the only two reviewers. I removed the textfile ref, but left the other two, because they satisfy the reliability criteria.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 18:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Legolas2186
There are lots more to do in this discography, and I don't believe it is close to being a FL yet. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – The article has improved greatly and can be promoted to FL now. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comments Box sets are compilation albums and book citations need page numbers. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merged with comp section; I asked the page number and I am waiting until User:Kai81's response.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Box sets are compilations, not necessarily compilation albums always. They can be kept separate I believe. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fair enough. I reverted the edits.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 15:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Box sets are compilations, not necessarily compilation albums always. They can be kept separate I believe. — Legolas (talk2me) 15:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merged with comp section; I asked the page number and I am waiting until User:Kai81's response.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 10:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
rcComments
|
- Support PumpkinSky talk 01:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no major issues for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no issues found. --PresN 21:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:29, 7 August 2011 [24].
- Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after the Peer Review it had, I believe that it's ready to become an FL Pedro J. the rookie 19:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it needs another copyedit. Just glancing at the article, I've found numerous grammar mistakes and a few spelling errors. Some of the stuff also needs to be reworded/rephrased, sometimes due to repetitiveness. Ωphois 19:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User Ruhrfisch made a CE this afternoon. Pedro J. the rookie 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still has some grammar issues. As well, a lot of the prose is written in a passive voice and should be rewritten in an active voice to strengthen it. Ωphois 16:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will ask a Copy editor to give it a check. Pedro J. the rookie 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a few grammar/punctuation problems. Also, why are the episode titles in the prose now italicized? They should be in quotes. Likewise, series titles (like in the reception section) should be italicized. Ωphois 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright the episodes and shows concern is done. Could you specify some of the grammatical errors, since I believe the CE would have shorten the amount. Pedro J. the rookie 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a few grammar/punctuation problems. Also, why are the episode titles in the prose now italicized? They should be in quotes. Likewise, series titles (like in the reception section) should be italicized. Ωphois 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will ask a Copy editor to give it a check. Pedro J. the rookie 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still has some grammar issues. As well, a lot of the prose is written in a passive voice and should be rewritten in an active voice to strengthen it. Ωphois 16:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User Ruhrfisch made a CE this afternoon. Pedro J. the rookie 23:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "While working on the series, Larry and his dog Steve slowly evolved into Peter and Brian; the rest of the series characters were added later." - "series" should be "series'"
- "After the pilot aired, the series was green-lighted." - should be "green-lit"
- "The season was produced by Fuzzy Door Productions and 20th Century Fox Television; it aired on Fox Broadcasting Company in the US. The executive producers for the season were David Zuckerman and MacFarlane;[10] the latter acted as show runner.[11] The producer for the season was Sherry Gunther, with co-producers Mike Barker and Matthew Weitzman;[12] Other producers included Craig Hoffman, Danny Smith, Gary Janetti and John Riggi.[12]" - "US" should be spelled out as "United States". The second sentence is terribly phrased.
- Stuff like that. Ωphois 20:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I fixed the I think I improved the second one. I will check over the artical to check anyother errors. If you find any yourself please list them. Pedro J. the rookie 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't have time to look through the article and point out every single error. That's the job for the copyeditors. Ωphois 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay I fixed the I think I improved the second one. I will check over the artical to check anyother errors. If you find any yourself please list them. Pedro J. the rookie 00:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Ωphois 16:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Legolas (talk2me) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Legolas2186, leaning towards oppose
I think much work is needed but I'm willing to wait and see if changes happen for good. :) — Legolas (talk2me) 16:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Neutral for now. I'm still not sure about the prose, as has been indicated by Giants below. It still fails a little in terms of brilliance and feels pretty rushed out, especially in the summary of the episodes. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
[reply]
Reference inconsistency again. You are wikilinking IGN in some of them, and in some you are leaving it out. Same goes for all of them. Either you link all the reference parameters, or you leave them. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After another careful look-through of the article, I believe all the concerns have been addressed, I can now support the promotion of this list. Good job everyone. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are currently two real issues with the image. Firstly, a forward facing shot (like http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/516KRQ21TQL._SL500_AA300_.jpg) would be preferred, as this current one has two copyrights- the box and the photograph, which is a whole can of worms we don't need to open. That one only has the box. Secondly, it has no rationale for this use. J Milburn (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, looking again, you're using the volume 1 cover, not the season 1 cover, which would be preferable. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. the rookie 14:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The new cover could do with having its whitespace cropped (and then being tagged with {{non-free reduced}} for good measure) but that solves the problems I raised. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Pedro J. the rookie 14:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose – I know there are likely to be more issues in a list of this type than in most lists that come to FLC, but this is full of little problems, including a bunch of grammatical bugs that shouldn't have made it to this point; a copy-edit beforehand would have been beneficial.
|
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 04:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
I'll review the Reception and DVD release sections on a second pass. Jujutacular talk 23:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's it from me. Jujutacular talk 23:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - looks good to me now. Jujutacular talk 04:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hello. I have looked this article over and believe it meets the criteria for FL, though I believe my active participation on improving related articles (about individual episodes) puts me too close to really put forward support. However, I am willing to make any last little improvements that anyone feels are necessary to get this article passed. Grammar and style issues, in particular. Bobnorwal (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pedro has done a good job improving the list, and it seems to meet the featured list criteria. Gage (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Regretful oppose (reviewing as someone who has seen a few FG episodes but isn't a regular)
I'll leave it there for now, and if you'd be good enough to ping me when you've responded to the above, I'll continue the review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Comments on synopses etc
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 19:06, 7 August 2011 [25].
- Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the last part of a three part set, the other two have been recently promoted. This builds on the reviews of the last two and I think it meets the FL criteria. Thanks for your time, Woody (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- Sorting by unit Samuel Wassall 18th Foot comes between the 78th and 81st
- Sorting by rank Bombardier seems to be in the wrong place amongst the privates.
- Reginald Sartorius links to two ranks MajorSergeant
Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All were rather stupid errors on my part, all fixed now thanks. I've put sorting for Bombardier as equivalent to Lance Corporal as it was at the time of the Crimean War/Indian Mutiny. Thanks for spotting these. Woody (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They were my only concerns.Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- why is there no link to the first two list in the series? perhaps in see also? all three lists should link to the other two.
- why is there no ref for each entry? this seems to be how the other lists are done (granted I'm new so I may not be aware of something here).
- PumpkinSky talk 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In connection to number one there is a link at the bottom of the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the refs, in all the other FLs I've looked at either: a) each list row has its own ref or b) there is a generic ref at the top that says something like "all these entries are found at "source xyz". So how is that the first two lists got to FL status and this one doesn't have ref for the entries? Can someone explain what I'm missing here? If it's in article somewhere, I missed it and pls point me to it. I simply what to understand how this works better. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As with a lot of FLs, this list uses a general reference. All of the information in this list can be found in about 10 pages in a table form at the end of Brazier's book as well another list in Arthur's book. These books are listed in the references section. If we put a reference for each cell into the table then we would have a reference used 100 times over (as the book has about 100 recipients per page). That wouldn't work very well. The references simply wouldn't be able to cope with it.
- In terms of providing a links to the other two more prominently alongside the existing navbox, I can definitely see your point. Perhaps a hatnote at the top of the page with "This article is part of an alphabetical series, see (A-F) (G-M)" Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something linking the three articles besides a big template at the bottom is needed. As for the general refs, that's fine, but I recommend two things: listing the pages of the table and putting a note at the top of the list mentioning the ref. RIght now we can't even tell which of the general refs you're talking about. These two things should be done in the other two lists too. I saw this thing with the general ref listed at the top (it used an 'a' instead of a ref number) but I can't recall what list it was in so I can't show you how it was done right now. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added in a hatnote now, does that work for you? Personally, I think the referencing as it is is the most accurate. General references aren't a rarity and I don't think it will confuse anyone. Whilst the vast majority of the list is sourced specifically from the table at the end, some points have to be checked in the main body of the books (usually posthumous details). As such it wouldn't be entirely accurate to list the specific page numbers of the table/list at the head of the table as you suggest. We could however put something along the lines of "The data in the table is predominantly sourced from Arthur and Brazier." Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be a butthead or anything, I'm trying to learn. I'm still new. When I started on wiki I was beat up for "everything has to have a ref (some people virtually every sentence) and books must list the pages and the refs have to follow the material". But now you're saying that isn't necessarily so. So, I check the FLs (there are several) on the American equivalent of the VC, the Medal of Honor, and some have refs done like these VC ones, and some have refs at the column header for the notes column, such as List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_the_Vietnam_War. All of the Medal of Honor ones use a pretty info box in the upper right to link to the other FLs in the series. You may want to consider that but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Very nice work on this series. I now have no problem Supporting. PumpkinSky talk
- I wasn't trying to badger you and I certainly understand your frustration in trying to learn all of the different quirks/rules/guidelines etc. Everything certainly has to be referenced, there are just various ways of going about doing that. That can be hard to comprehend even for those of us who have been around a while! Thanks for your review, Woody (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to be a butthead or anything, I'm trying to learn. I'm still new. When I started on wiki I was beat up for "everything has to have a ref (some people virtually every sentence) and books must list the pages and the refs have to follow the material". But now you're saying that isn't necessarily so. So, I check the FLs (there are several) on the American equivalent of the VC, the Medal of Honor, and some have refs done like these VC ones, and some have refs at the column header for the notes column, such as List_of_Medal_of_Honor_recipients_for_the_Vietnam_War. All of the Medal of Honor ones use a pretty info box in the upper right to link to the other FLs in the series. You may want to consider that but it's certainly not a deal breaker. Very nice work on this series. I now have no problem Supporting. PumpkinSky talk
- I've added in a hatnote now, does that work for you? Personally, I think the referencing as it is is the most accurate. General references aren't a rarity and I don't think it will confuse anyone. Whilst the vast majority of the list is sourced specifically from the table at the end, some points have to be checked in the main body of the books (usually posthumous details). As such it wouldn't be entirely accurate to list the specific page numbers of the table/list at the head of the table as you suggest. We could however put something along the lines of "The data in the table is predominantly sourced from Arthur and Brazier." Woody (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Something linking the three articles besides a big template at the bottom is needed. As for the general refs, that's fine, but I recommend two things: listing the pages of the table and putting a note at the top of the list mentioning the ref. RIght now we can't even tell which of the general refs you're talking about. These two things should be done in the other two lists too. I saw this thing with the general ref listed at the top (it used an 'a' instead of a ref number) but I can't recall what list it was in so I can't show you how it was done right now. PumpkinSky talk 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the refs, in all the other FLs I've looked at either: a) each list row has its own ref or b) there is a generic ref at the top that says something like "all these entries are found at "source xyz". So how is that the first two lists got to FL status and this one doesn't have ref for the entries? Can someone explain what I'm missing here? If it's in article somewhere, I missed it and pls point me to it. I simply what to understand how this works better. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In connection to number one there is a link at the bottom of the article Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support Nicely done again! You may want to consider changing the footnote syntax by using {{#tag:ref| text of footnote.<ref>citation of footnote</ref>|group="Note"}}. This makes it much easier to add another footnote at a later time without having to keep the ordering sequence in mind. Another suggestion, you explained the abbreviation of RAF (Royal Air Force) before the table but all the other abbreviations such as AIF, RAAF, NZEF are not explained, also maybe worth considering. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: