Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/January 2015

Add links
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 archived by SchroCat 20:15, 28 January 2015 [1].

List of A-League hat-tricks

[edit]
Nominator(s): 2nyte (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to List of Premier League hat-tricks - an existing FL. 2nyte (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - is there really any need to break out "The A-League, created in 2005, is the top tier of Australian league football" as a note at the bottom? The start date of 2005 is mentioned in the opening sentence anyway, and I really don't think the article would be drowning in text if the first clause was expanded to "Since the commencement of the A-League, the top tier of Australian league football, in 2005–06....." and the note removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the opening, incorporating the note into it. Sorry for the delayed reply.--2nyte (talk) 10:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • Do nationalities need a flag? Can't be sure, per MOS:ICON.
  • "the top and only professional association football league" sounds naff, if it's the only then it has to be the top. Suggest a rephrase.
  • "in 2005–06," nope, that's the inaugural season.
  • "over twenty players" more than.
  • "in A-League matches" no need to repeat A-League here.
  • "by scoring three (or more) goals" why not just "scoring at least three" or "three or more"?
  • "The first was scored" ->" The first hat-trick was scored..."
  • "Five players have scored more than three goals in a match" missed where how many people have scored a hat-trick...
  • "There have been two hat-tricks scored in one match on one occasion" clumsy, e.g. "On one occasion, two hat-tricks have been scored in a single match...."
  • "only player to have scored a hat-trick after coming on as a substitute." no ref.
  • "Shane Smeltz has scored the most hat-tricks," no need to relink or repeat his first name. Apply to others.
  • "a record 4 " four.
  • Check refs for WP:DASH violations, e.g. ref 32.
  • Make sure works are properly formatted, e.g. refs 11, 28 should have The Sydney Morning Herald.

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still need to fix the refs, not sure what to do to fix WP:DASH violations. Regarding flags for nationalities, not sure if I should remove them. Also, the opening line reads "the top and only professional association football league".--2nyte (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replace hyphens with en-dashes per WP:DASH. The MOS would say that we don't need flags if they're unnecessary, i.e. they over-emphasise nationality. As for the "top and only" it depends how you read it, hence the confusion. Is it "top and only" (i.e. a singular league) or is it "top, and the only professional"...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I loved this list. It has good information, an appropriate style, and media.

  • Ref 24 redirects away from the intended piece. 21 is dead.
  • The last line in the first paragraph (Besart Berisha's fastest) looks like it might be better somewhere in the second. The first paragraph is primarily about the number of goals scored while the second looks like other interesting tidbits.
  • I'm under the impression that alt text is no longer required but it is cool if you feel like it
  • The images seem just a little cluttered on my screen. Removing one should be considered but I'll leave it up to you to decide if it would hurt more than it does good. Would using the upright option help? See the tutorial [here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Upright_images].
  • Is the external link necessary? Maybe under WP:ELMAYBE #4. I'll also differ to your judgement on this.

Cptnono (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--2nyte (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Happy to support Cptnono (talk) 09:57, 9 January 2015 (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 archived by SchroCat 20:15, 28 January 2015 [2].

List of colleges and universities in Delaware

[edit]
Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria for promotion to Featured List status. This list also exhibits all the characteristics and contains similar information to other featured lists of universities and colleges including: List of colleges and universities in Michigan, List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C., and List of colleges and universities in West Virginia. -- Caponer (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • @Caponer: Think this is the third time I've reviewed on of these. Only a few dozen to go!
  • "Delaware does not have a medical school, however, the Delaware" - that however is bothering me. I'd replace it with "does not have a medical school, but the Delaware..."
  • And... that's it. Huh, guess it's easier once you've done a few lists of the same type (plus this one's shorter). Consider archiving your online links with something like archive.org or webcitation.org so that future changes in content/removals of pages don't affect your citations. If you found this review helpful, consider optionally reviewing the FLC for Hugo Award for Best Fancast further down the page. --PresN 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • PresN, thank you for your support of this list. I've removed the bothersome "however" and replaced it with "but" per your recommendation. I will look into archiving my online sources. Thanks again for taking the time to review this list! -- Caponer (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Massive lead considering the size of the list. Not sure, yet, how to best rejig the information, perhaps a shorter lead, and then a couple of decent paragraphs in a following section.
The Rambling Man, thank you for your thoughtful review and for taking the time to do so. I've re-examined the lede per your comments, and I feel that despite the list's brevity, the lede is of comparable size to the ledes of similar lists. Even though this list is much shorter, the lede must characterize the institutions by oldest, smallest, largest, etc. Subsequent paragraphs outside the lede are usually discouraged in Featured Lists. Is this a deal-breaker? -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would prefer to see the "plainrowheaders" so we don't have centrally justified bold links for each college.
I've modified the college names with your "plainrowheaders" recommendation. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be good to learn a little about the defunct colleges, rather than just the table and a single sentence saying they used to exist.
  • "List of defunct institutions in Delaware" not strictly true, add some context. Similarly the other table's "caption".

The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the defunct institutions as it detracts from the list topic. -- Caponer (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, more accurately you've begun an edit war to delete that section without trying to even discuss the issue with other editors. Not cool. And you didn't even bother to drop a note about this nomination in the article Talk page where other editors might be able to see why you're making these changes. WTF? ElKevbo (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, I apologize for not leaving suitable comments or notification prior to removing the defunct institutions from the list. I in no way meant to cause an edit war. I've been contributing to Wikipedia since 2005, and have not yet found myself in such a war, and would prefer to keep it that way. I sincerely apologize. With that said, the defunct institutions have been deleted as this is a listing of current post-secondary institutions in Delaware. -- Caponer (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the justification for deleting references to the notable institutions that have closed? Including them provides critical historical context indicating that today's higher ed institutions and systems did not spring forth fully formed and have significantly changed in the past couple of centuries.
And why do you get veto power over what is and is not included in this article? ElKevbo (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, the defunct list has been reinstated. The Rambling Man, I'll begin working on including your suggested edits to the defunct list. -- Caponer (talk) 04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, I've expanded upon the defunct table. I hope this is to your liking. Please review and share your comments and suggestions here. -- Caponer (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ElKevbo, please note here whether these edits to the list have fully addressed your comments. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I've added to the defunct institutions table. I've modified the titles, and added a notes column with context. -Please let me know if you require any additional edits in order to garner your support. Thanks again! --Caponer (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, please note here whether these edits to the list have fully addressed your comments. Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2015 (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 archived by SchroCat 11:50, 26 January 2015 [3].

List of Prime Ministers of India

[edit]
Nominator(s): RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is in a fine shape to fulfill the criteria. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as principal contributor to the article. This article is not yet ready.—indopug (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree with indopug above. The entire lead is unsourced as well as some of the facts in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 13:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close: Per above.--FrankBoy (Buzz) 14:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per what principal contributor Indopug said. --Sundostund (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2015 (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 archived by SchroCat 11:45, 19 January 2015 [4].

Lo Nuestro Award for Urban Artist of the Year

[edit]
Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. This list was created after all the comments and suggestions for the other Featured Lists about the LNA's. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I do not know how to do this. Can somebody help me?. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added them. Seattle (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The winners need the Double-Dagger added.
Added. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Double-dagger itself needs an |alt= parameter for readers with images disabled; see Template:Double-dagger for more information
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Years in the table should not be bolded, nor should the links
This is fixed by the reviewer. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make sure all references in Spanish are marked as such (references 12 and 25, for instance, check all)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Check again here; at a glance, there's still some Spanish references without this parameter. Seattle (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Multiple wins and nominations" table could be separated into two tables and worked to sort.
I did not find any way that it could work with the "sort" so I decided to remove that part. The information is already in the list and the infobox. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Seattle: How do you unbold the years on the table? Erick (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: I've added "plainrowheaders" to the table, which unbolded the links. Do respond when you've finished my other comments; this article is close to meeting the FL criteria. Seattle (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Magiciandude:@Seattle: I am ready for more comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2015 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 17 January 2015 [5].

List of Space Shuttle missions

[edit]
Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Previous discussions: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (first FLC), Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of space shuttle missions/archive1 (removal).

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the removal concerns have been addressed. My role in this article was to collect sources and format the article according to MOS. While there are still minor things to do, I believe it should pass muster now. Thanks much! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • This is a list in table format ... We don't start articles "This is an article about...". Applies to lists too.
    • I added a new leade. I took the information from Space Shuttle and trimmed/modified it slightly. Does this work?
  • The lead needs to be completely reconstructed; it discusses the tables and not Space Shuttles themselves. Fails point two of the featured list criteria
    • Rewrote the Leade
  • The title seems too awkward to bold, see MOS:BOLDTITLE.
    • Rewrote the leade.
  • launched between 1981 and 2011 what happened in 2011? Lead doesn't give history of program or the basic purpose of the flights.
    • Rewrote the leade.
  • Watch dead link
    • Converted to an archive link.
  • For "Celebrating 30 Years of the Space Shuttle program", why not just cite it once in a "Bibliography" section and point readers to the appropriate page number with an in-line citation? That would cut down significantly on the page's size.
    • Fixed.
  • The "Notes" section should not be sortable.
    • Fixed.
  • I feel like the "Flight statistics" section is a summation of the other tables and should be placed at the end of the list rather than the beginning. Why isn't that table sortable?
    • I agree with that thought, I've moved it. I also fixed the sort bug that prevented me from making it sortable intially.
  • The "Launch date" column under "Launches and orbital flights" sorts by month rather than by year.
    • Done.
  • Why do you force the tables under "List of shuttle flights" at 95% font size instead of its normal rendering?
    • Fixed. That was left over from before I started on the list.

Oppose based on the lead's malnutrition and the list's poor sorting and formatting. Seattle (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am handling these comments. I will notify when I'm done. ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 09:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seattle: I've addressed your comments. If you have any others, I'd be glad to hear them! ~ Matthewrbowker Poke me 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Alright, I have a bunch of comments, but they're honestly not that bad- you can probably fix them, so not opposing.

  • "They were used" - they is ambiguous, and at this point you haven't said yet that there were multiple space shuttles.
    • Fixed.
  • "indicating scheduling sequence[9] ." - period before ref
    • Fixed.
  • "As with the sequential numbers" - you didn't say that sequential-numbered launches were based on scheduling, so this should be "Both systems of codes were assigned..."
    • Fixed.
  • "With the resumption of flights in 1988" - you haven't yet said that flights were ever stopped
    • Fixed.
  • I'd like it if you said how many flights were in each numbering sequence, as well as the total number.
    • Done.
  • Table one- on sortable tables, you have to link every row, not just the "first" instance, since it changes. E.g. Edwards should be linked all five times.
    • Done.
  • Table one- link Enterprise (each time)
    • Done.
  • Table two- why is the code number bolded? It wasn't in table one.
    • It's bolded in Table 1 now.
  • Table two- mission is sorting oddly (STS-1, STS-100, STS-101, etc.) - put sortkeys so that it sorts as if it was STS-001, STS-002, etc.
    • Fixed.
  • Table two- again, link all shuttles and landing sites
    • Done.
  • "First flight of two women in space Ride and Sullivan; First spacewalk by US woman, Kathryn Sullivan; First Canadian in space Marc Garneau" - you need a comma between space and Ride, and space and Marc; you call her Sullivan and then give her full linked name second, you don't give Ride's full, linked name at all.
    • Fixed
  • You're really inconsistent in how you list multiple items. Sometimes you put a period, sometimes a comma, sometimes a semicolon. I'd almost rather see a bulleted list instead for each row, but for space reasons just stick with semicolons between each item
    • I decided to convert to bullets for the same reason you gave. Unfortunetly, this does increase the overall article size, however; it is more readable and easier to edit.
  • "Planned tracking and data relay satellite deployment, Loss of vehicle and crew, Teacher in Space Flight" - no context and random caps in "Teacher in Space Flight", "Loss" capitalized for no reason
    • Fixed.
  • "first post Challenger flight" - "post-Challenger"
    • Fixed.
  • Link Spacelab whenever you use it in notes
    • Fixed.
  • On some notes you end with a period; these are not complete sentences, so don't
    • Fixed.
  • Inconsistent on italicizing Mir in notes
    • Fixed. Also linked all of them.
  • Link ISS each time you use it outside of "ISS assembly"
    • Fixed
  • "Japanese Experiment Modoule" - typo (twice) and don't link it since it's the Kibo, which you already link
    • Fixed.
  • "After STS-121, the rescue flight for STS-115, if needed, would have been STS-301" - confusing, and wasn't 121 after 115?
    • Fixed.
  • No ref given for first contingency missions paragraph
    • Fixed.
  • Flight stats table- spell out the whole month, not "Apr"
    • Fixed.
  • You pull out Chen into the bibliography, but not Goodwin? Or the other books?
    • That's what I get for editing at 3am. Fixed.
  • cites to Chen should be "Chen, p. 5", not "Chen 5"
    • Fixed.
  • Works like TIME magazine, Florida Today should be italicized ("work="), linked, and formatted properly (Time, not TIME Magazine)
    • I didn't know that was a thing. I fixed it.
  • Be consistent if the publisher is National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA (and link it, either the first time or every time)
    • Fixed.
  • You're formatting dates day-month-year in references, but month-day-year in bibliography (and everywhere else)
    • They're all day-month-year now. I did it using a regular expression match script, which may have missed one.

If this review was helpful, consider optionally reviewing the Hugo Award for Best Fancast FLC down below this one. --PresN 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

: Note: I am handling these comments. Apologies, I got surprised by an end-of-semester project that is limiting my Wikipedia time. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: @Seattle: I have finished handling these comments. I apologize again for the delay, and thank you for your patience (It enabled me to get the A I desperately needed in the class). Seattle, I'm pinging you as well per your talk page. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Support. --PresN 17:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list seems to be good for FLC. Under the crew column though, what does 7/7, 7/8, 6/7, 6/6 mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
Number of crew launched/landed with. I've added a note. ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 00:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better. The only thing I feel is missing is some more meat to the intro. For example you could have another paragraph discussing the highlights of the 135 missions: longest (with number), mission objectives such as how many went to ISS (how many assembly, how many supply) or Mir (I remember only a few of the SSs could dock ISS), highest (I think the two Hubble ones), the two crashes (with numbers), how many deployed satellites, how many landed at Edwards vs Kennedy (was there a rationale for the landing site?), how many astronauts were on all 135 missions, how many missions had EVA. Also, "Spacehab" and "SPACEHAB"? Some of the notes entires are a bit weird "LAGEOS II" => add "deployment"? Consider looking at each note entry and make sure it makes sense to a non-astronomy expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I went ahead and added the middle paragraph, which includes a ton of statistics. I also tried to clarify a few notes. Hope that works! ~ Matthewrbowker Give me a ring! 07:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, but can still be improved.
  • Try to answer the question: what was the purpose of all these missions? The second para answers it a bit, but I feel it still doesn't summarize the notes section sufficiently. For example, until #97 almost all missions were some deployment of some sort, while after that it was almost only ISS.
  • Also, some of the notes aren't very clear: #86 was a deployment? similarly the following notes need some TLC: #10, 17, 22, 32, 49, 56, 62, 65, 68, 71, 75, 77, 80, 83, 86, 88, 92, 97, 113, 127.
  • "DoD" and EVA is not explained at first use.
  • It will look better if you use * even for the single-entry notes

Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2015 (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 archived by Crisco 1492 11:59, 17 January 2015 [6].

List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey

[edit]
Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been working on this list for a while and think it meets the criteria. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Watch all-caps in reference 21
  • Why can't you merge this list into one table with two additional columns for "Sponsor" and "Award"?
  • I think it's neater this way since it's clear she's not going to be nominated only once (in comparison to films or albums), and this way, it is easier to navigate and see, which organisation nominated/awarded her at what time for which work. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No need to link common terms like "nightclub".
  • "Del Rey began writing" no need for the quick repeat, just "She began..." is fine.#
  • "her to get out of her contract" clusmy phrasing, can we improve?
  • No need to link common geographical locations like London or England.
  • "was the fifth best-selling album of that year" in what context?
  • "As of July 2014..." it's December 2014, any update?
  • "Born to Die: The Paradise Edition" uses a colon not a spaced endash.
  • No references for the end of the third para of the lead.
  • "Best Original Song - Motion Picture" needs an en-dash.
  • Why are awards given to Lana Del Rey herself shown as N/A?
  • "The XBOX Entertainment Awards are held by XBOX and voted for by XBOX players" XBOX used three times in a single sentence is a little dull.
  • Check refs, 42 for instance shows the BBC as being a work not a publisher.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2014 (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 archived by SchroCat 07:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Lorde

[edit]
Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that this list is appropriate for a Featured List. I will appreciate any comments that help improve this list. Cheers, Simon (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • First sentence is a little jarring, can we not expand it to include a more elaborate description of her?
  • "and has sold" -> "which has sold"? As of?
  • While it's interesting that it sold 60,000 copies in the US, "Royals" totally dominated European charts, so that would probably be more relevant.
  • And actually, according to our article, it sold 5.9 million copies in the US (which actually is notable!). Perhaps check the discrepancy here.
  • "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1" uses an en-dash, not a comma.
  • "With the two first major releases, " doesn't seem necessary at all.
  • No need to pipelink Billboard Music Award to Billboard Music Awards which then just redirects back to Billboard Music Award .
  • "Overall, she has received ..." as of?
  • "are an music awards ceremony" "is a music..."?
  • "wo awards out of twelve " replace "out of" with "from".
  • General - "The Brit Awards are annual pop music awards presented by British Phonographic Industry. Lorde has won one award." Award award award.... dull and repetitive prose.
  • Shouldn't "J-14 Teen Icon Awards" be "J-14 Teen Icon Awards"?
  • "MuchMusic Video Awards" section, she's won one, nommed one, not just nommed two.
  • "won two awards out of seven nominations" looks more like two from five to me.
  • "MTV Video Music Awards" same comment as MuchMusic.
  • Canadian Broadcasting Company is really Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]
  • The first and second sentences can be merged to say "New Zealand recording artist Lorde is well known..."
  • In the introduction, can you change "as of now" to a specific month for clarification?

The list looks to be in good shape, I don't really have anything else to add right now! Once these corrections are made I'll take another look-through because I am a little tight on time lately, so I'll set aside some more time to thoroughly look through it. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: I have addressed all of your concerns above. Much thanks, Simon (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
Comments
  • "she was signed to Universal Music Group"..... signed a deal with
  • Not sure if it's needed to mention the November 2012 self-release of The Love Club EP
  • "Lorde herself won one MTV Europe Music Award and two New Zealand Music Awards in 2013, as well as a Billboard Music Award for Best New Artist in 2014. Aditionally, Lorde earned a pending Golden Globe nomination for Best Original Song for 'Yellow Flicker Beat'."..... I'd replace one of the instances of "Lorde" with "she" to avoid repetition
  • December 2014 should be changed to January 2015 because of the new year :P

Overall, very impressive work. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I have addressed all of your concerns. Much appreciated, Simon (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I now support Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Lorde is a New Zealand singer known for her contrary view of pop culture with that of her contemporaries. - That is possibly the poorest definition / first sentence I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. "Contrary view of pop culture"? It's been "in" to be "contrary" for ages. Can we define her a bit better than this, please?
  • At the age of 13, she signed a deal with Universal Music Group (UMG) and started to write music. - So what did she do before she signed? Just sang?
  • The album has sold 2.7 million copies worldwide, - as of when?
  • Additionally, she earned a pending Golden Globe nomination for Best Original Song for "Yellow Flicker Beat". - "pending" reads strange here. Also, when is the ceremony?
  • I'd have insisted on references there, too. That something is referenced elsewhere is not sufficient reason to not reference something in the nominated article, particularly at the featured level. This is the only point holding me back from supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your concerns. Simon (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2015 (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 archived by SchroCat 07:39, 13 January 2015 [8].

List of Governors of Iowa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been gone from the governor list racket for a while but I was inspired by the election to hop back in. This was a relatively simple list; very few governors had the rudeness to die or resign. I'm trying something new with this than my older ones, namely removing the "other offices" and "living ex-governors". I am being bold and suggesting these aren't very valuable, and add needless maintenance to the article. It doesn't really matter which ones are still living, and as for 'other high offices', even my solid criteria end up being subjective, and if someone really wants to know, it's a quick browse through the articles. That veers into the territory of being about the people rather than being about the office.

Anyway, please let me know what you think of these bold ideas, because whatever we conclude to be the best will be implemented in all the others. :) --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your change removing former living governors (if you wish to discuss, please do so on the article talk page, not here). I am curious if the idea of listing governors' terms as "1/2" if it was a partial term is used in any sources? I suspect it isn't, and it is rather inaccurate and misleading, so I would suggest its removal and replacement with the terms as they might be listed in an Iowa history book (I may look this up later, but it would probably be 1-2 wks). – Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of fractions is purely to indicate that a particular term was split between multiple governors. It has no bearing in sourced material but has been successfully used in over a dozen other featured governor lists. I wouldn't mind replacing it with a list of terms if that could be done well, but generally, due to the nature of rowspans, it isn't. Look at List of Presidents of the United States, for example - Nixon's term is much, much smaller than Ford's term, because rowspan simply isn't up to the task. In the past, I've run into problems with rowspans becoming infinitesimally small, so that it becomes misleading to the reader. Going with one cell per row fixes that issue. --Golbez (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point - and have had troubles with rowspans myself - but using a fraction to indicate a partial term can be terribly misleading. Better, I think, to have the full number of terms the governor served for part of, with an asterisk or a dagger to indicate that they weren't complete (or even a small (partial)). One might expect that if every governor has a whole number that some didn't complete the term and they should be aware of notes for partial terms, but the use of a fraction suggests an additional level of accuracy - and one that just isn't there. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say on that front is: the few people who have expressed confusion didn't express further when the footnote pointing out how the number works was shown to them; it gives us a handy place to put the footnotes, rather than a mostly-empty column; and the existing featured governor lists included that. If the standard has changed that dramatically, fine, but I'll need more than a single point of feedback to accept that. However, the other lists included the 'other living governor' and 'other high offices' sections as well, so I was bold and suggested removing them. Had to start somewhere. --Golbez (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just the sheer ... inaccuracy ... of it that bothers me. It's the old rule from math - the more digits to the right of the decimal point you have, the more accurate you are. Yet adding the greater level of specificity here (1/2) actually does not add accuracy to the list.
Pause.
...And I've just had an idea. What about using "+" to signify a partial term? This avoids the accuracy problem while still clearly conveying that it was more than just the number for the complete term. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, how would you suggest using that? Also keeping in mind, there are multiple types of partials. For example, when a governor enters a term mid-way, is elected, and exits their next term mid-way. The odd solution I came up with was "1/2 + 1/2" as seen on the List of Governors of Arkansas. --Golbez (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just had a brainwave. Check out what I've tried. --Golbez (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks pretty great! It seems to solve the various problems quite nicely while remaining very easy to understand. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused -- aren't Terry Branstad and Terry E. Branstad the same person? And if so, why link them both and not tie them together in the lead? For a moment, I assumed they were different people (perhaps father and son?) Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 06:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry, removed the initial. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The lead is on the lean side, I'd beef it up a little.
  • Try to avoid single-sentence paragraphs where possible.
  • Avoid the use of the hash character to represent "number".
  • I'm worried about the use of just colours to denote the party allegiance of the Lt. Gov, you name the party for the Gov each time, but WP:ACCESS seems to be failed for the Lt. Gov.
  • No images of any of the former governers?
  • Several footnotes are unreferenced, where can I cite them?
  • Ref 21 is an en-dash fail.

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll work on some of the others later, but re the Lt. Gov party - A note indicates that they share the governor's party unless specified, and each time when they are different there is a footnote indicating that. And the unreferenced footnotes can all be handled either through the constitutions (which I agree, need references) or the general NGA source. If I need to have a specific reference for each then I'd lose the joining of footnotes like we see for "died in office". There is one single-sentence paragraph; any suggestions on how that should be changed? And finally, what should it have other than "#"? --Golbez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      Quick reply, WP:HASH has suggestions regarding the hash symbol. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as FLs go, is it better to have images for some and not for others (depending on availability) or no images at all? It looks like a little over half of the articles currently have images in them. Several (but probably not all) of the others have images available that just aren't on Wikipedia or Commons yet. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • As mentioned above, the lead seems a little short. A few ideas: Iowa Territory could be briefly mentioned. Is it possible to incorporate any info about currently living former governors? Party and possibly Lt. Governor also since they are column headings.
  • I prefer the opening paragraph at the Featured List of Governors of Arizona
("The Governor of Arizona is the head of the executive branch of Arizona's state government and the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. The governor has a duty to enforce state laws, and the power to either approve or veto bills passed by the Arizona Legislature, to convene the legislature, and to grant pardons, except in cases of treason and impeachment." Consider adjusting some of the linking in the lead. Iowa State Legislature could be piped to remove "Iowa State" (quick turnaround of the word). "state's military forces" is two links but initially could read as one. Also, "National Guard" might be better than "military forces".
  • Consider notable governors (possibly from the lead) next to the table
  • Would it be useful to have any sorting function in the tale? Party is the only one that jumps out since I don't think it is possible or necessary to view it in reverse chronological order.
  • The redlink in the last footnote is not needed. Also needs sourcing.

Cptnono (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (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 archived by SchroCat 13:51, 3 January 2015 [9].

List of German field marshals

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was a huge, unreferenced mess when I first saw it. After working on the article for about a month in my sandbox it's become (in my opinion) worthy of FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MisterBee1966

[edit]

Pretty good progress. Please find a few recommendations below. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest to make use of the template {{sortname}} for better name sorting and {{dts}} for correct date sorting. Using dts template you can merge the "Year of promotion" and "Date of promotion" columns.
This is a good suggestion, but I don't know how to use all those templates. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes to the section "Nazi Germany (1933–45)". Note that you must adhere to MOS:DATERANGE
  • If available, I would add a picture column. I believe a number of pictures are safe to use on lists. Alt text may be required
After looking at List of British field marshals I agree on what you say about a picture column. Will check into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. checkY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to add alt text to the images
  • The lead needs some expansion. You need to provide some motivation for the four sections and maybe add some statistics, like X were promoted during the War of XYZ ....
I don't feel the lead needs that much improvements. I like the idea of "X were promoted during the of X", but further expansion are (in my opinion) unnecessary. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. checkY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name" triggers the question what was the name
Yes it does, but this is an article about who held the rank of field marshal, not the old one, so didn't put too much emphasize on this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Field marshal (German: Generalfeldmarschall) was the highest military rank in Germany for 75 years" what about Göring? Wasn't he an exception to this rule, he became a Reichsmarschall. Maybe worth commenting on
True, but Reichsmarschall was only created for Göring so people knew who would be Hitler's successor in event of an early or unexpected death, thus the current wording ... But, to avoid confusion I will add a note.
It's added. checkY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters, were tax-exempt, member of the nobility, equal with government officials, under constant protection or escort, and had the right to directly report to the royal family." How was this handled in the Third Reich?
The wording fits on how field marshals were treated during the Third Reich - except the part about royal family for obvious reasons. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:13, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to red link the three marshals for which Wiki doesn't yet have an article
God, I hate red links. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check disambiguation on Emperor Frederick III, Ernst Busch and Prince Friedrich Karl of Prussia
Well spotted, will do. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All are now fixed. checkY Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "Eduard von Böhm-Ermolli" his article states that his promotion was on 30 October 1940. The list states 31 October 1942, which would make it a posthumous promotion. What is correct?
  • I suggest to put the citation after the date and get rid of the reference column
  • Since the lists are sortable you need to make a comment on how they are sorted initially.
  • Since you included the field marshals of the Luftwaffe, would it make sense to list the Grand Admirals of the Navy?

Comments by Yakikaki

[edit]
  • Initial comment Very nice clean-up and extension! This list have all the possibilities of becoming a truly great list, IMO. A few questions though: The timeline seems a bit confused. First it states that it was the highest rank "for 75 years". Then it says it has existed since 1631. Then it says it was recreated in 1870, and then abolished in 1945. In the list itself, there is also a gap between 1919 and 1933. So, I assume it wasn't used in the Weimar Republic? Maybe this gap should be explained. The other gap is between a for me unknown time and 1870. Perhaps this could be elaborated? When and why was the rank abandoned? The "for 75 years" could then perhaps be supplemented with the addition "from Germany's unification until the end of WWII" or something like this. And if the kingdoms of Saxony and Prussia were the only pre-unification kingdoms that used the rank, perhaps this should be clarified (the messy history of Germany before unification is a bit infuriating when it comes to these questions, I know - what constituted "Germany" before 1870?). OK, there's some food for thought for now. I'll get back with additional comments. And again, very nice list! Please don't be deterred by these comments, I'm happy to supply what held I can if you need :) Best, Yakikaki (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yakikaki, you have also made some useful comments. Regarding the timeline confusion, the article states the rank had existed since 1631 under a different name, recreated in 1870, and then finally abolished in 1945 - I don't quite see the confusion of this? However, your suggestion about making a text-section for the Weimar Republic, I have implemented, very good suggestion. I have also expanded the lead. Check out the article now and tell me what you think. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the Weimar addition is clarifying. About the timeline: if the rank was created in 1631 (by whom, one asks, considering there was no unified Germany at the time) and then recreated in 1870, this implies it was abolished sometime between 1631 and 1870. This should then be clarified. One cannot create something in 1631, go on with business as usual and then recreate something which already exists in 1870. Furthermore, I assume the "75 years" are about 1870 to 1945, but there is a gap there during the Weimar era, so the 75 years aren't really correct either (or possibly they are, in theory - was the rank disbanded or just not used?). But the reader gets the information that it was created in 1631, recreated in 1870, abolished in 1945 and for 75 years was the highest rank. The reader does not know why or when it was abolished in order to be recreated in 1870. The reader also doesn't know which 75 years it was the highest rank (between 1631 and 1945 its not 75 but 314 years; but perhaps it wasn't the highest rank from 1631 onwards?). Herein lies the confusion. Another question: was it the highest military rank only in Saxony and Prussia? Not in Bavaria, Württemberg or any other German principality? Yakikaki (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nergaal

[edit]

At a quick glance:

  • the 5 separate tables should be merged and you should add the date the person died (presumably when they finished being ranked as FM)
There isn't enough room. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had existed since 1631 under a different name" => what name?
Will look into this. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • how was Hans Georg von Arnim-Boitzenburg given the rank?
Why is this important? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • was abolished in 1945 => what remained as the highest rank after?
Will add some words. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • note a shoudl be partially included in the text
I don't understand this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equal with government officials" +. vague
I don't think its vague at all. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "constant protection or escort" => by whom? the military?
Obviously! Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • quite a few were kings/rulers of countires. mention this in intro
I don't think that's nessecary. The lead mentioned it was recreated for two princes and the titles are stated in the tables. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • notable FM? like Goring and Rommel?
Both Göring and Rommel are mentioned in the Nazi Germany table.
  • in general the intro feels too short
I don't think so. If you look above you can see someone has suggested the same which I have replied to and acted upon. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose after a month my comments have not been addressed. The list is probably complete, but it is really uninviting. The table can be improved, and the intro made more interesting. Nergaal (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Noswall59

[edit]

Comment Hi, the lists themselves are well-ordered and clear. I do echo the previous suggestion about a death column - it looks like it would fit to me, especially if you combined the date and year of promotion columns... However, I do have a couple of queries. Firstly, why is the first table under the section header "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)", when only one of those people included in the table was appointed after 1806? Secondly, perhaps it might also be worth moving the pre-unification tables for Prussia and Saxony (they weren't Germany, and it makes the whole list more complex and fragmented)... I wonder what other reviewers think of this? Regardless, if we are including pre-unification states like Prussia and Saxony (either the Kingdom or Electorate) then presumably we ought to have some reference to other electorates/kingdoms like Bavaria, Hanover, Wurttemburg and the Rhine Palatinate. Even if there were not Field Marshals appointed from these areas, then perhaps, for the sake of completeness, this should be stated; and, if there were, then they ought to be included here too (or in (a) separate pre-unification list(s)). Lastly, I wonder how we know whether this list is complete... has anyone reliably published a list of Prussian or Saxon Field Marshals which we can check? Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Noswall59, thank you for you comments. Regarding the "Kingdom of Saxony (1806–1918)" confusion, the "(1806–1918)" addition is simply meant to tell the reader how long the Kingdom of Saxony lasted, not when the first field marshal of that Kingdom was promoted. Since you, and the others, has asked for it, I have included a death column. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonas Vinther:. Thanks for replying and for adding the death column. Firstly, I am aware of what you intended by the "(1806-1918)" section but my point was that all but one of these Field Marshals were not actually from the Kingdom of Saxony; they were appointed/promoted by the Elector of Saxony, and the electorate was a different political entity (at least in theory), hence it has its own article (Electorate of Saxony) which is distinct from the article on the Kingdom of Saxony. Secondly, you have not acknowledged my other points, which I fear may be a tad more significant than this issue. I do appreciate that you may not be able to respond quickly and that they are big queries, but I am interested to discuss those matters constructively. It will be interesting to see if others will have a say on the matter too. Once again, many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
And, of course, the same applies to the Kingdom of Prussia - it was actually Brandenburg-Prussia (Brandenburg being an Electorate and Prussia a Duchy) until 1701. --Noswall59 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Noswall59, I'm not an expert on German states and especially not on old German states, so if you can I would appreciate if you correct them (Kingdom of Saxony => Electorate of Saxony etc.). Regarding your other points, I will not be making the lead longer as I believe the current length is fine. You also said you feared some of your other points might be more important and that I have not addressed them. If you still stand by these points, I suggest you explain them to me in laymen's terms one by one. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonas Vinther:Okay, I've corrected the names. The other points are those made in my initial comment; I will itemise them below in detail:
  • That the article does not look at the Field Marshals appointed/promoted in other pre-unification German states, e.g. Wurttemburg, Bavaria, Hanover. Therefore, it cannot be said to be complete. If, as may be the case, there were no appointments from any other German states, then I think this should be mentioned and reliably cited in the article, to clarify to the reader that this is the case. It appears that Yakikaki later said the same thing in his comments above.
  • That there doesn't appear to be a way of me verifying the completeness of the article based on its sources. You have done a very good job at making sure that each person in the table is cited, but I don't see (correct me if I'm wrong) a reliable list of German field marshals referenced. This would be a helpful way for us reviewers to make sure that your list is as complete as it can be. You are, after all, covering a lengthy time period. This is not necessary per see, but would be very helpful.
  • That the lead and other prose is too short and does not summarise the list particularly well or in a way which seems to me to meet the standards of a professional encylopaedia. There is no summary of the appointments, their backgrounds, notable members, their reason for appointment, etc., nor (in much detail) of the rank itself, its history or its function. I can see several royals whose appointments were clearly not based on merit (Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, for instance); that is fine, but this could be explained to the casual reader. I am aware that the rank already has its own article, but you should still summarise its history and development. The point of the lead is that it should be able to summarise the topic independent of anything else, so as to provide a concise but useful overview of the article. I believe this lead does not do this enough. See the article Field marshal (United Kingdom), which is a Featured List.
  • Given the reasons mentioned immediately above, it seems sensible to suggest that this article be merged with the Field marshal (Germany) in line with the precedent the British article has set.
  • That, while this article's content is within the scope of its subject, I wonder if it would be better to have a separate article for pre-unification Field Marshals because the political make-up of Germany was so different. Having separate lists for each state also makes it seem more fragmented. This is not a problem with your content, but a general comment which may be a point of further discussion. If we look at the British article I have just cited, it remains within the scope of Kingdom of Great Britain, which was formed in 1707; in this article being nominated, we are talking about a national identity, rather than a political entity. I will leave this one to see what others say, and I won't make it a condition for my review, but I hope it will raise some questions.
Edit: The matter is further confused by this article: List of field marshals of the Holy Roman Empire, which seems to overlap with our one. --Noswall59 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note: Please understand that I appreciate the work you have put into this article and that it has been improved significantly by your efforts; but at present, it seems to fall short of the standards required here. Now, I would like to see this article reach FL standard, and I can see that you already have experience in writing articles of that standard, so I am sure you are capable here too. I do not want to discourage you, and I hope that this article can reach this standard. My advice would be to please take a look at the British article and see if you can't try a similar format here, because the British article does meet the standard and, while the content itself will obviously be different, it's format and length is of the encyclopaedic standard, both in terms of completeness and prose, not to mention the other areas required of a FL. King regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Parsecboy

[edit]
True, my mistake. I confused the destruction of the U-boats with total abolishment. Will fix. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comments by Auntieruth55

[edit]

Nice job cleaning up a mess!

  • As a field marshal you played a compelling and influential role in military matters,[3] were tax-exempt, member of the nobility... How about "Field Marshals played a compelling and influential role...etc. Also, why are each of these qualities footnoted, rather than simply a foot note at the end of the sentence?
  • I'm very confused about the selection process for this. There were a lot of Napoleonic era field marshals that you have not included.
  • Perhaps it would be more useful to make a list of Field Marshals of the 20th century, or of the Second German Empire....?
  • There needs to be a section on the role of the field marshal, beyond a single para in the lead about it. I'd expand that paragraph into a section that gives examples of the function of a field marshal in different situations. (military matters, tax exemption, members of nobility, etc.) auntieruth (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I noted in comments above that there is confusion about the titles of states (such as Kingdom of Saxony v Electorate of Saxony). If the link goes to the right historical entity, professionally I would not be concerned about whether I called it a kingdom or an electorate. Saxony was both a kingdom and its king was an elector, thus making his kingdom an electorate. The position of electorate gave him rights with selecting the new emperor. But his status as king was higher on an average day. So, I've always tried to refer to electors as such when they are in their roles as electors, and kings when they are in their roles as kings. I got into major discussions with people in the article War of the Bavarian Succession over whether or not Bavaria should be called a Duchy, an Electorate, or a Kingdom. auntieruth (talk) 20:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, Saxony was not actually a kingdom prior to 1806 and, when it became a Kingdom, its kings ceased to be electors (at least, according to the article) and its Electors were not kings until that year; see the List of rulers of Saxony and also the articles on the Kingdom and Electorate of Saxony. To be fair, though, just calling it "Saxony" in the header would probably suffice. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • As for the big question about "what is Germany": many have asked this, and not answered it. I'd suggest you avoid that question (it's unanswerable) and start with 1871. Even then, it's a bit dicey because the various states had their own armies, but I think it's more doable under those conditions. auntieruth (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree on this issue with auntieruth. Skip the ones from before 1870 and concentrate on making the list really good from then onwards. Earlier field marshals should be listed for their respective entity, e.g. "List of Prussian field marshals", IMO. Yakikaki (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, nothing in 2014 describes Germany better than Die Nationalelf. In that respect we need to add Jogi Loew to the list. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what you all are saying, but don't agree on much of it. And also, just because a list is incomplete, that does not mean it cant be a featured article - look at Bernard Lee on stage and screen. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
However, the reader (at least I had) would assume the list to be complete. If it is not complete, the reader needs to be made aware of this fact. Having read the other comments here, I have to agree that the suggestion to limit the time frame from 1871 onwards makes a lot of sense. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I have found a book: Preußisch-deutsche Feldmarschälle und Großadmirale by Jürgen Hahn-Butry (written some time during the Nazi period I think). It is catalogued at OCLC World Cat ([10]) but I doubt you will find a copy - it seems to be very rare. This does seem to be the only book on this topic, which I find surprising. Nonetheless, it might be worth looking at the German language article ([11]), if you've not done so already. It may be possible to add more to the English list by using that as an example. For instance, the German list includes Friedrich Ludwig von Dohna-Carwinden, who was apparently appointed FM in 1747; he is not cited there, but his article on the German wiki ([12]) includes a citation which is a reference for his promotion: [13] (pages 22-23). That book cited might be a useful publication for others too - it appears to be war history book published in the 19th century (see [14] at the de wiki). Furthermore, I don't know whether there were ever lists of officers published by the German Army - in the UK there is the Army List, published annually. That might be useful if such a thing exists. Also, does Germany have an equivalent to the London Gazette? If so, that might be useful for finding notices of appointments as well. Thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
MisterBee1966, one can, just like the article about Bernard Lee does, add a "this list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it" template. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but I have my doubts that adding the {{expand list}} to this article at this stage makes a compelling argument to convince the reviewers to support your FLC nomination. As mentioned before, I think you would be better off limiting the list to the German Empire and Third Reich time frame. In its current state the article still has multiple issues, from weak lead, to technical issues and now I learn it is also incomplete. To achieve your objective, getting this list to FLC, you would be well advised to embrace some if not most of these suggestions and refrain a little more from pushing back on valid concerns. The choice is yours MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noswall59, good job and thanks for finding the book. I would, however, strongly oppose including non-book sources in this article. I spent many hours finding book sources instead of non-book ones, and would hate to see newspapers or whatever in this article. I'm not acting like WP:OWN, merely stating my opinion as the main contributor to this articles possible FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonas Vinther: Hi again Jonas, hopefully you will make progress with this. Just to point something out: the London Gazette is not a typical newspaper - it is a government register of appointments and official notices, and is, for that reason, a very reliable source for reporting facts. If Germany has an equivalent (which I imagine it might do) then it is worth exploring and I imagine it would be an entirely suitable source as well. Anyway, in reply to your other comments, I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into finding these references, which I have acknowledged before, but I do feel that you are essentially refusing to make a list more complete by not adding information based on reliable sources (for instance, the example I have given above). You also haven't really answered my point about looking at the German article. There are several examples of omissions in the English one where it can take little effort to find sources by looking on the German wiki. I have given on example above, for another, take a look at Heinrich VI of Reuß-Obergreiz, a FM of Saxony promoted in 1697; he had a long career and has an entry in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (transcribed at the German wikisource here), which is the authoritative biographical dictionary for Germany; it took two clicks to get that reference. Not all are going to be that straight-forward, and it would take a long time to work through that list, but you cannot deny that more information is not accessible out there. The article you cited above about Bernard Lee has been thoroughly researched and it is incomplete because it is clear that the information which would make it complete doesn't appear to exist any more (or at least not in any readily accessible manner); that is different from deciding not to incorporate information for reasons of personal preference, or not including it because it has not been searched out. I do believe, once again, that this article has scope for approaching completeness if this technique were adopted. As MisterBee says above, it is your choice whether you decide to look any further into this matter of completeness, or indeed any of the other points raised by the reviewers here. Regards, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Noswall59, sorry for the long delay in replying; I actually forgot I even had nominated this for FA-status. Regarding the London Gazette, I have no doubt it's reliable and very trustworthy, I merely rejected the idea of including non-book sources on the grounds that it would look stupid with one or two non-book sources as the article mainly consists of book sources. But, if it can help the article and the nomination, I think it should be included, absolutely. I will be happy to look further into matters, but would appreciate some assistance. I would be happy to see you editing this article without asking for my opinion, as I'm sure it would only improve the article. I just really want to see this article achieve FA-status. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to read this comment. It would help me if you could tell us what actions you intend to take on this article, don't forget that you had nominated the article, not us. I think you need to provide guidance and structure to the feedback you received so far. I am a bit lost now on what you will fix yourself and where you need help. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MisterBee1966, to be specific, I would like some help with expanding the lead and adding the remaining field marshals who are not listed. Obviously I have included all I know and could find a source for, but I believe it was Noswall59 who pointed out that some Prussian FM's are missing. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have looked at List of British field marshals, so I understand now the lead could some an expansion, but I don't have any ideas for it. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewers have given you a few suggestions already. If I were you, I would first address the question of scope of the article, meaning you have to address the question of what is Germany in this context. With respect to this article, I would limit the scope to the timeframe German Empire onwards. This eases your task significantly. In the lead, remember a Featured Article has to be largely stand-alone, you could give an abstract of German military history pertaining to German Empire, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West and East Germany and the unified Germany of today. Then you could talk about how field marshals fitted into these periods and why they were abolished or did not exist in certain timeframes. You could also talk about how and who appointed field marshals in the various regimes and what role they played. Maybe you could also talk about grand admirals. They held a position similar to a field marshals. I think this is how I would approach the problem. I hope this helps you a little and gives you an idea on how to move forward. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonas Vinther:. Hi again, I agree with MisterBee on the whole. The scope certainly needs looking at and should allow you to develop the article. I am busy offline at the moment and so I won't commit to anything with regards to this article; I may well contribute in future. I will say that for the lead MisterBee is absolutely right, and you may need to summarise the rank, its seniority, its history, insignia, etc., and then summarise the list of those who held it - how many were there, were there any honorary appointments, perhaps tell us why. Look at explaining why there were no appointments under the Weimar Government and then why there are none after the war - assume the reader knows very little here. Hopefully, in conjunction with the British article, our advice should help you. Best wishes, --Noswall59 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Failed_log/January_2015&oldid=644599358"