Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2010
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 17:44, 30 January 2010 [1].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Wt is this (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Immediate disclosure: this is a former featured list, see here for details. Primary concerns seemed to be over sourcing, lack of lead, etc, which I think I've addressed. I've also made the table sortable (after a recent FL - List of Indian women Test cricketers) and added a few images. I am concerned that the player images may cause issues on narrower browsers and will remove them if there's a consensus to do so. Otherwise, we have no dabs, all images have alt text, the columns all sort correctly, I don't think there are any typos, and everything that should be referenced, is. Finally, I have notified User:Wt is this as, judging by the list history, he did a lot of the work following the FLRC, and has been keeping it up to date in the meantime. I'm hoping he'll accept the offer of co-nomination of this list. As ever, thanks for all reviewing time, suggestions, praise etc! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For convenience of comparison, this is the list as it looked when it was delisted. BencherliteTalk 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support -
The first paragraph seems a bit blocky to me. Not exactly sure how it can be fixed, but the short sentence "England won the match by 100 runs" doesn't fit in well for me, and the subsequent explanation of T20I cricket seems a bit out of place straight after it.- Do you think a brief explanation of the format should be first, then describe England's entry into the format, then the individuals? Or should the format be described afterwards? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested below by Bencherlite, possibly switch the paragraph around as you say, so describe the format first. Harrias (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, have done, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant, that reads much better. I've moved (T20I) to the first instance rather than ask you to do it! Harrias (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, have done, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested below by Bencherlite, possibly switch the paragraph around as you say, so describe the format first. Harrias (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think a brief explanation of the format should be first, then describe England's entry into the format, then the individuals? Or should the format be described afterwards? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Eoin Morgan holds the record for the highest score by an Englishman in T20I cricket," as he is Irish, he is an England cricketer, but not an English cricketer, or an Englishman, can this be reworded?- "... by an England player ..."? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Stuart Broad is the most successful English bowler in T20I," only if the definition of successful is wickets. In T20, it could be argued that economy is more important, and Maddy has a better average, which others may consider the rating of success. Could you rewrite it to either clarify, or remove 'successful'?- Tsk, I absolutely knew this would be picked up and I'm not sure why I dared to keep it in... how does "... has taken more wickets ..." suit you? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"who featured for the first time, against Australia in August 2009." No comma necessary.- Okeydokey. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself is, as far as I can see, perfectly fine. Well done! Harrias (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and for moving those images. Safari seemed to cope heroically with them being there, and even does when you reduce the width to barely nothing. IE7, now that's a different kettle of fish altogether.... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from BencherliteTalk 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Bencherlite (after edit conflict)
|
Support Good work by TRM and Wt is this. BencherliteTalk 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment wouldn't it be more simple to have the key in a table rather than the way its showed here? and wouldn't it make more sense for the Career column if Present was actually written out instead of a gap being left? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how it would be more simple to have a table rather than the way its laid out. And I think the note leaving an open-ended dash is as easy to understand as "present", particularly with the note (which would be necessary in either case to validate my claim of "live" members of the squad). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just thought it'd be easier if it was in a table. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 07:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, not sure what you mean by "easier" as it's effectively tabulated but in a prosey way. I don't see the need for yet another table. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was just a suggestion, no biggy. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't reviewed the list or prose itself yet, but the images are quite bunched up. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I noted this would be a possible concern in my nominating statement. So far you're the only one to have a problem with it - I'd guess you're using IE and have a horizontal resolution of less than or equal to, say, 1024? The world would be a better place if everyone used Safari.... But seriously, if it's a major concern then I'll have to remove those player images altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to force them narrower using "upright", (perhaps cropping Wright's photo) but not forcing image size. BencherliteTalk 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I'll give that a try, but what is worrying is that JC is seeing these thumbs with different widths in his browser and that's definitely not good... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative would be to force them narrower using "upright", (perhaps cropping Wright's photo) but not forcing image size. BencherliteTalk 07:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I noted this would be a possible concern in my nominating statement. So far you're the only one to have a problem with it - I'd guess you're using IE and have a horizontal resolution of less than or equal to, say, 1024? The world would be a better place if everyone used Safari.... But seriously, if it's a major concern then I'll have to remove those player images altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment - Why not mention in the Collingwood caption that he has played the most T20's for England? Aaroncrick (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Mr Crick. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you also do so in the image caption? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done also. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you also do so in the image caption? Aaroncrick (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
You could indicate the captains and wicket keepers in some way (or at least the captains), such as in List of South Africa women Test cricketers.- Done this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about sorting the number of wickets taken according to total runs conceded, perhaps using a sortkey? For example, when there are several players who have taken 6 wickets each, they will be sorted from who has conceded the least amount of runs to the highest. There's something similar in this list.- Heh. I'll see what I can do. The sorting is pretty complex, as well you know, on these types of list. I'll try not to break it... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, it looks good to me. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I think I've fixed it per your suggestion. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Yeah, perfect. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just make sure you keep updating the article every so often. Aaroncrick (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course. Thank you for your interest, comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - It looks great and I have no problems with it. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:55, 27 January 2010 [2].
- Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starting off the new year with another centuries list. I think the legend deserves to have a list of his own ;) As always, all comments and suggestions would be most welcome. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments yeah, not sure you could have made a better choice of subject for these kinds of list, even if he wasn't the most prolific centurion, his efforts certainly deserve this kind of content fork.
The Rambling Man (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments Support
"19 of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team": per MOS:NUM, "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark".
- Done
The above goes for "5393 of his 6996 Test runs came from these 29 centuries", although MOS:NUM also rules out spelling out 5393, so I'd recommend rewriting the sentence.
- Done
Something about Bradman's captaincy should be mentioned in the lead.A great deal has been written on the man, and I'm sure someone has commented on how the captaincy affected his batting (he averaged about 3runs more as skipper, although that's not a huge difference considering his average when not captain was 98.69).
- Done
The lead is left slightly open, it feels like it needs something to round it off. How about mentioning his retirement?
- Done: I've changed the lead quite a bit as well, and would appreciate your views on that.
In addition to Rambling Man's points above, I've done some copy editing myself. Everything else seems fine. The sources seem ok (reliable and consistently formatted); alt text is present; the table is sortable and easy to use. If these issues can be sorted, I think I'll be able to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and copy edit. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only remaining issue is that I'd like to see something on how the captaincy effected Bradman's batting, aside from the raw stats that he scored 14 centuries as skipper. However, it's not a significant issue and doesn't really change the comprehensiveness of the article, so I'm switching to support. Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most books think that Bradman was a lesser after the war, but on the other hand, Bradman also had to put up with Bodyline in his earlier years. The stats can also be altered by a few sticky wickets so it might not be all that indicative. On another note, most historians also regard the 1930s as being somewhat weak on the bowling front, so averages might not equate with ability at the time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't add that since I thought it would look more like a batting analysis than a lead for a centuries list. I added the normal average since I thought it would show his rate of scoring, or how often he scored centuries. If this information is really needed, I can add it. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"in the 1936/37 season". I'm pretty sure the Manual of Style says somewhere that slashes like this one shouldn't be used in prose. Usually en dashes are used for seasons in other articles I've seen.
- Done: Hmm... I'll remember that.
"and scored 14 of his centuries as captain of the Australian side," Punctuation switch needed at the end of this part.
- Done: Stupid mistake.
"In fact, he would have retired with an average of 100 had he scored four more runs in his final innings." Don't believe the first two words are needed. While they may be intended to show that a given fact is surprising, most of the time it's better to just let the fact speak for itself.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Thanks for your suggestions. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The cricket project has got itself another winner here, on a subject who truly deserves it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Can you also add that the 334 was also the highest Test score at the time (a record that lasted near three years)?I think the list is otherwise comprehensive. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 04:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Thanks, I had missed that. Chamal talk stealth mode 07:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you reword "In the same series, he went on to score one century, two double centuries and a triple century, accumulating 974 runs in 7 innings" to something like "...he also scored a century and two double centuries....accumulating 974..."; it currently reads a bit like the century, two doubles and the triple followed the original triple, although the total says that's not the case.cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 17:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: I have reworded it to make it clearer, although not in the way you suggested. What do you think? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Comments have been addressed. I do think Mattinbgn's comment on the name is valid, but it's not (IMO) important enough to hold up this list. –SpacemanSpiff 18:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
You state "Bradman only played international Test cricket matches and not One Day Internationals and Twenty20 Internationals, which were not played by that time." To me, this indicates these had previously been played but weren't any longer, should the 'by' be changed to 'at' maybe? Otherwise, it all looks good!
- Done
- '
'"He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (2) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara." Per WP:MOSNUM, should the (2) be (two)? Similarly with the rest of the numbers under ten that you use throughout the article.
- Done
- Other than those two issues, it looks great, and it'll be good to see such a worthy recipient of FL! Good work. Harrias (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed, and thanks. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, thanks for the quick fixes, and as I said above, a very worthy article about a very worthy subject. Harrias (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Great work. However, wouldn't a more appropriate title for this list be List of Test cricket centuries by Donald Bradman? I understand why you have used the title you have (consistency with List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar et al) but it rings of false inclusiveness and anachronism if you ask me. International cricket was Test cricket prior to 1970 and sure enough the list provided here only includes Test centuries. The name isn't a deal-breaker by any means but it just rings false with me. Once again, great work with the list. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said, I named the article that way to be consistent with the already existing lists. I don't have a problem with renaming it if others feel the same way, or keeping it as it is. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, the name is not a deal-breaker, the list is certainly featured quality. Personally I would support a name change, others may feel differently. Perhaps others at WT:CRIC may have an opinion. If the name is the only thing holding this up, please don't worry about it. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 08:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you said, I named the article that way to be consistent with the already existing lists. I don't have a problem with renaming it if others feel the same way, or keeping it as it is. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 11:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: — Thought this may have passed by now. Great work nonetheless. Aaroncrick (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lede needs a copyedit before it reaches the requirements for featured content. The following particularly struck me:
- Australian cricketer Sir Donald Bradman, often called the greatest batsman of all time,[2][3][4] scored twenty-nine Test cricket centuries during his international career which lasted from 1928 to 1948.[N 1] However, his cricketing career was interrupted from 1941 to 1946 due to the outbreak of World War II, followed by poor health.[5] I think it would be better to break the first sentence after "career" and then continue "It lasted from 1928 to 1948 with an interruption from X to Y due to a combination of World War II and and ill health."
- The "X to Y" above is because I'm not sure you picked the right dates. Australian first class cricket was suspended before the start of the 1940-41. Looking at History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s, I would be surprised if a tour wasn't initially scheduled either for 39-40 (possibly a vist by South Africa though India and NZ were theoretically available too) or more likely 40-41 (which would fit with a 4-year schedule for a visit by England).
- The provided ref clearly says "... on 3 September World War Two broke out. It was decided that cricket would continue for purposes of morale", mentions a 1st class double century in 1940, and also says that he enlisted after the surrender of France (25 June). History_of_the_Australian_cricket_team#The_1930s is completely unreferenced, so we can hardly rely on that can we? I had mentioned the year as 1941, I have fixed that.
- He assumed the captaincy in the 1936–1937 season,[6] and scored fourteen of his centuries as captain of the Australian side. Better: "He became captain of Australia during the 1936-1937 season and scored fourteen of his test centuries as captain." Answers the question "captaincy of what?"
- Reworded
- Bradman holds the world record for the most double centuries scored by a single batsman, with twelve to his name. Better "Bradman's total of twelve double centuries is a world record.
- He is also the joint record holder for the highest number of triple centuries (two) with Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara.[9] Again I prefer Bradman was the first of just three batsmen to have twice scored triple centuries in test matches. The others are Virender Sehwag and Brian Lara."
- Reworded
- Nineteen of his centuries were made against England, which remains the world record for the highest number of centuries against a single team. "How about "His total of 19 centuries against England remains the record against any one (test? international? first class?) side."
- Reworded
- It was also the highest individual test score at the time, and remained so until being surpassed by Wally Hammond in 1933.[12] better "It was the highest individual test score until Wally Hammond score 3xx in 1933."
- Reworded
- In the same series, he went on to score one century and two double centuries as well, I prefer "Bradman also scored two double and one single century that series,"
- Not done, since to me this makes it seem like his 974 runs (mentioned following this phrase) came only from those.
- And one unrelated point. Shouldn't the South African flag be the old one as he never played against the post-apartheid side?--Peter cohen (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed
- Thanks for your suggestions. I have changed the article somewhat, but I haven't done most of the rewordings exactly as suggested. Since the lead is basically a bunch of scores, I'd prefer not to have short sentences so that it wouldn't look like a bunch of statistics thrown together. Anyway, I will take a look at the factual problems and then try to reword the sentences more suitably as soon as possible. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 17:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A tour by England in 1940-41 did exist before it was cancelled. There was still some first-class cricket in 1940-41 and maybe the year after as well. I don't have the book with me, but Military career of Keith Miller, Ray Lindwall, Arthur Morris, Bill O'Reilly and so forth will have sourced details of some matches in 1941... I'm pretty sure they kept on playing until Pearl Harbor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reworded the article some and corrected the flag. However, the rewordings are not exactly as suggested, due to the reason I've given above. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. support I still think the use of "as well" is not the superb prose expected in featured content. How about In the same series, he went on to score a further century and two more double centuries...? The triple century technically falls into both those categories at least e.g. when compiling a list of his centuries.
--Peter cohen (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that sounds better to me too. Changed as suggested. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 16:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [3].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Built in the style of featured lists List of New York Mets first-round draft picks and List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks along with the likely-soon-to-be-featured List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks. Give me one second to fix the dab links using the tool, but review away! Staxringold talkcontribs 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
"while seven outfielderss" - !?"based in the Astros home city of Houston." - should be Astros'"and a compensation pick from the team he signs with" - and a compensation pick from the team with which he signs
- All done! Staxringold talkcontribs 14:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Support Mm40 (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). I think I smell another featured topic...
|
- Comment - Forgive me if I've missed something but for the notes, Vabcde... yadda ya, I was just wondering why is V at the beginning and why is it no the letter a? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 19:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea was to keep the notes semi-consistent, and this style was developed under List of Boston Red Sox first-round draft picks which actually gets through the whole alphabet. The idea is to use V for "Value" while just simple lower-case letters for the various compensation/lost picks. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok cool makes sense, I have no tiffs over the list then, I Support it. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – My comment have all been addressed, and everything looks to be at FL level. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One I just thought of (as I'm starting LAA draft picks, hope that's OK), maybe the section can be Selections or Picks instead of Table.Mm40 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phew, scared me before I re-read that, I'm doing LAD in my sandbox right now. It's kewl with me, just so long as you intend on bringing it to FL status. I'm worried about TOR, SEA, and some of the other lists that have been made but not polished up (particularly TOR). And that title sounds better, how about we go with "Picks"? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, Picks seems better. BTW, you may want to make the changes suggested here to all the other first-round picks FLs. I probably would've done LAD except I saw it in your sandbox. Mm40 (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already did it when I changed the Astros list. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [4].
- Nominator(s):--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I feel it meets the criteria. I am currently working on two topics (Topic 1 and Topic 2) on all of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling's championships. That being any that have been defended there at least once; not just TNA owned titles, any from any promotion over the seven years TNA has been around that I have evidence occurred. This title was defended in TNA twice and acknowledged by the promotion, so it falls under that area. This and probably one more, unless I discover another that was defended in TNA at a house show or something, is all I have left that I plan to take here. The rest can go to GAN. That is just the first, the second is about all champions in TNA, which also involves this one. As such, I rewrote this article entirely to get it to FL standards. All comments will be taken care of as soon as possible. Thank you to all who take the time out to review.--WillC 09:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold |
|---|
|
- Support Though I'd love to see a bit of info on the title-creating tournament, what is there is what is there. If you get the time please stop by my FLC, which has also slowed a bit and could use a fresh reviewer! Staxringold talkcontribs 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Try using {{SortKey}} so the vacated "reign" sorts as a zero, otherwise you can't actually get the max in each col at the top when re-sorting. Plus it's chronologically out of order too.
- Will try to do that.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're lucky, Dabomb87 will be back soon and will be able to point you in the right direction here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And here I am. Will try to take a look soon. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're lucky, Dabomb87 will be back soon and will be able to point you in the right direction here. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will try to do that.--WillC 04:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Yeah, date column is fine to me. Small question, should "Reign" be a sortable column? I guess it's useful to sort by reign and then by name so you get the multi-reign guys in order of their reign (though that could be done with dates as well). I ask because other than that use it seems to not do all that much, since there isn't any real commonality because "first reign" guys that I can tell. Meh, it doesn't hurt anything the way it is. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, wasn't a big part of the format discussion done months ago.--WillC 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Oppose Maybe switch to Support if some fixes are made: First, the sorting needs to be fixed (there is no reaso for a vacant reign to be listed ahead of the longest title reign when sorting by length, vacancies should be list at the bottom. This is a problem with the sorting method Wrestlinglover wants to use, the sorting method used in FL's like List of WWE Champions do not have this problem and I have pointed this problem out to Wrestlinglover many times before). The width also needs to be fixed, no reason for columns like Location to be as wide as it is and forcing the Notes column to be so condensed. Also, Tag team names should be listed primarily and the members to be in parenthesis (not the other way around like the article currently does). TJ Spyke 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like this vote not counted in the closure. TJ is bias against me due to our constant disputes over list format, so his vote is not neutral. His example is of an article that was passed as an FL over 2 years ago which fails the current criteria today including the sorting criteria he mentions, I and others have tried to explain this to him. Also TJ, the sorting problem has been discussed above as including the sortkey template. Dabomb is to be looking into it. Also, the tag team idea could work, however, that is to keep consistent with previously passed tag team FLs such as IWGP Tag Team Championship, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions, List of ECW World Tag Team Champions, List of TNA World Tag Team Champions, etc. The champions come first, before the team name.--WillC 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done some work on the days held sort problem. The table is designed to do it, it seems. After various changes, it does not change. I used several different sorting methods, and yet it still followed the same suit. However, following the WWE Champions list is completely unacceptable. The days held columns has a 0 instead. Those are not reigns and not in anyway should they have a number there at all. Also, they are mixed in with other wrestlers 0 day reigns. The columns go vacant, held up, Andre the Giant, vacant, vacant, etc. That is not good sorting either. It would be best for you to strike your oppose on the grounds of not having enough knowledge on what makes an FL, over previous disagreements and the fact you voted oppose on this during an on-going disagreement after I presented you with the link to it shows you can't be neutral on this manner, etc.--WillC 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so it should not be stricken just because you disagree with me. As for the teams issue, I will tell you what you keep claiming when you go around changing entire articles to the format you personally like more: articles can continue being improved. Just because a tag team article was passed with one format does not mean it needs to stay that way. The format used in this article (and others you want to see it in) offers no benefits over the one already used in Featured title Lists (which DO pass FL criteria). TJ Spyke 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TJ, this isn't about me disagreeing with you on formats. This is about you don't have the ability to be neutral in your vote. When you and I are involved in a argument on another page and have history, you voting oppose or support on this page can not be taken as neutral. That is a good enough reason for it to be striken from the final vote.--WillC 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, I don't discount actionable comments because of a personal feud between nominator and reviewer. Please respond to the other comments TJ Spyke made (aside from sorting, which you've addressed), and explain why they should not be implemented (for example, why the width does not "need to be fixed", if you don't think there's a problem). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I however feel this is unneeded. If he was just reviewing the article, it would be fine. But due to his comment being posted directly after I gave him a link and he mentioning old formats, it seems more of a revenge angle rather than genually trying to help. I have looked into all of them. The location problem is vague. I don't know what would be a good width. I have decreased the section to 15% like the event column. As for the tag team being above, when the format was introduced, that is how it was agreed to be placed. See here where it was brought up again and it being agreed to in this section.--WillC 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, I don't discount actionable comments because of a personal feud between nominator and reviewer. Please respond to the other comments TJ Spyke made (aside from sorting, which you've addressed), and explain why they should not be implemented (for example, why the width does not "need to be fixed", if you don't think there's a problem). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TJ, this isn't about me disagreeing with you on formats. This is about you don't have the ability to be neutral in your vote. When you and I are involved in a argument on another page and have history, you voting oppose or support on this page can not be taken as neutral. That is a good enough reason for it to be striken from the final vote.--WillC 04:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
Support -- My main issues were fixed, but I would at least make a mention somewhere in the article (in prose or footnote, or however) that unlike other companies defenses are recorded by NJPW.--Truco 503 16:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got a few minor problems which shouldn't be a trouble fixing
- "Being a professional wrestling championship, the title is won as a result of a scripted match." it feels like this statement could be changed a little bit to specify the match is predetermined.
- I think it could be mentioned in the 3rd paragraph that this was because of a pre-existing relationship between NJPW and TNA.
- in the References #1, 2, 3, 7 you've listed the site as NJPW.co. which it should be NJPW.co.jp as listed in the General references.
- References #4 and 10 you've listed as WrestleView.com and #5 and 9 its listed as WrestleView, this is minor but it's a little inconsistent.
Other than that I think its fine, they might not even be problems to the list. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 05:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done.--WillC 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I have no problems with it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 07:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the column widths still need fixing, but that can be done any time. The team name issue is about to be changed as so far the consensus at WT:PW is to list the team name fix. However, if the sorting feature for vacancies hasn't been fixes yet then it should go back to the previous template (which works much better than this format, the format in this article offers no benefits over the previous one). If this happens I will give my Support, otherwise I have to Oppose. TJ Spyke 22:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sort issue is table. That is a design flaw in the main code, something I have nothing to do with. It does it with both formats.--WillC 00:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the widths some more. As for the tag team name discussion, that is a discussion. No new consensus established yet. If a new one is reached I will change them, but not until then. At the moment it is pretty close. Also, vacant wise, there only difference between them is the sort templates and the days held has a 0 in it, which is incorrect since they aren't reigns and if you read the key the dashes are there to not include those columns as offical reigns.--WillC 08:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did my recent edit fix the sorting as desired? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, vacant reign column still comes after the longest reign. I tried everything from sortkey, to changing the letter or number it sorts by, to placing a days held template in the sort template. Nothing changed it. Nice try though.--WillC 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for kicks, what would the list look like in TJ Spyke's format (I would like to see a sandbox version if possible), and would the sorting still not work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of WWE Champions, the vacant reign would be sorted within the official reigns. Just replacing the dash with a zero, though vacant columns aren't reigns; it would be just silly to add.--WillC 23:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for kicks, what would the list look like in TJ Spyke's format (I would like to see a sandbox version if possible), and would the sorting still not work? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, vacant reign column still comes after the longest reign. I tried everything from sortkey, to changing the letter or number it sorts by, to placing a days held template in the sort template. Nothing changed it. Nice try though.--WillC 01:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did my recent edit fix the sorting as desired? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would imagine it'd somewhat look like this [5] as he seemed adamant at the time to maintain that format before Will brought it up to current FL standards. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just put in a "to and from date" that ends up in "-1" so the reign lasted from Jan 4 to Jan 3 and it sorts like it should, lower than zero. MPJ-DK (59,25% Done) Talk 11:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You MPJ, that is very helpful of you. However, I don't understand what you mean. Maybe you can point me to one of the lists you've done that has this in it so I know?--WillC 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did not work. New option — sorts as "0" and any 0 day reigns sort as "0.1" to fix the problem? Not that it's a problem in this list at this point in time. MPJ-DK (59,25% Done) Talk 06:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It already sorts as zero and yet still comes after the longest reign. This probably has always existsed since the days held column was introduced it seems.--WillC 07:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So very strange, I credited them with a "0 day" reign (Jan 1, 2000 to Jan 1, 2000) instead of "0" and that apparently makes a difference? don't know why, don't make sense but it sorts correctly right now in this case - so strange
Thank You MPJ, I did that before and it didn't work. Maybe you just have the magical touch.--WillC 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sorting function is really odd, I guess it takes an odd man to fix an odd problem ;) glad it worked, it'd suck for that to be a problem for FL. MPJ-DK (59,25% Done) Talk 13:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well again thank you. The list format has yet to be perfected and probably never will. Good thing is this is one less problem.--WillC 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now it fullfills the "No redlinks at all" criteria ;) MPJ-DK (59,25% Done) Talk 19:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While expanding the OVW Heavyweight Championship in a subpage, I discovered another problem. The fix to this one helps, but the vacant reigns come before the o day reigns. It goes 1 day, vacant, 0 day. I've worked on it and found no solution thusfar. I've tried sorting by 0.1 on the O day reigns. I've tried sorting the vacant reigns by -1 day and nothing. Would like to find a solution. Maybe you, MPJ, have some ideas?--WillC 19:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was encouraged to follow up on my comments here so that the FL process could move on. I actually did not have any objections to the article, I just tried to help Will fix the sorting problem, so in that regard I made no comments that need to be addressed in the FLC Process. So good luck with it (and I'm kinda stumped on the OVW thing myself Will). MPJ -DK 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [6].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it now meets all the criteria.—NMajdan•talk 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't see anything in the article about OSU's former name and moniker. When most of the people listed in the article were head coach, they were coaching the Oklahoma A&M Aggies. This sentence: The team has had 22 head coaches since organized football began in 1901 with the nickname Cowboys. makes it sound like the team has been the Cowboys since its inception in 1901. For almost 25 years, the team was exclusively the Aggies and for almost the same length of time, the team was called both the Aggies and Cowboys. NThomas (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great suggestion. I didn't even think of that. I will add a little bit about the previous school name and nickname.—NMajdan•talk 13:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The changes look great. Good work. NThomas (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from NThomas (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment - "The Cowboys have (plural) played in more than 1,000 games during its (single) 108 seasons" - needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
One more minor thing I saw: a comma should probably be inserted before "joining in 1915" in the second paragraph. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments - Did any of the coaches win a National Coach of the Year Award or a Conference Coach of the Year award. If so, I think that would be worth mentioning and/or integrating into the list. But that is just my opinion and if that is not needed, then the list looks good to me. Remember (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None won any National coaching award. Don't know about Conference as those are usually hard to trace down.—NMajdan•talk 16:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be easy enough to find. Just look for a list of Conference Coach of the Year winners and look for OSU winners. According to this, Bob Simmons won in 1997. Just look for a source. Mm40 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked for a source for Simmons winning? I quickly found this, but I'd like a higher-quality source. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simmons' award is mentioned here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My support below is assuming you'll add this before promotion. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NMajdan, please don't forget to resolve this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is in regards to adding the Coach of the Year mention to coach Simmons, correct? If so, this is complete.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NMajdan, please don't forget to resolve this issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My support below is assuming you'll add this before promotion. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simmons' award is mentioned here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked for a source for Simmons winning? I quickly found this, but I'd like a higher-quality source. Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be easy enough to find. Just look for a list of Conference Coach of the Year winners and look for OSU winners. According to this, Bob Simmons won in 1997. Just look for a source. Mm40 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I'm not quite sure I want to support yet, I'll recheck at some point. Note that I've commented on a few issues below.
Mm40 (talk) 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Support assuming you'll add the Conference Coach of the Yeah for Simmons. Also, you mix {{Citation}} and the {{cite x}} templates, such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}. One should be used throughout. Mm40 (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the coach of the year award. Also, I do not see any issue with mixing templates, so I disagree. You should not mix templates with plain text citations, but it should not matter which template you are using.—NMajdan•talk 15:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, cite XXX and citation use different citation styles, so mixing them creates inconsistencies, which we do not want. Anyway, I have fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't that then be resolved by the template designers? I think we're getting awfully picky if only certain templates can be used together. Nonetheless, thanks for your assistance.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The mysteries of the assorted citation templates are beyond me. The only thing that we care about at FA and FL, in terms of citation formatting, is consistency, and for whatever reason using citation and cite web/book/whatever together doesn't do that. I agree that we should do a better job of standardizing citation styles, but getting anything done in the realm of style of formatting is a huge time-waster. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't that then be resolved by the template designers? I think we're getting awfully picky if only certain templates can be used together. Nonetheless, thanks for your assistance.—NMajdan•talk 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, cite XXX and citation use different citation styles, so mixing them creates inconsistencies, which we do not want. Anyway, I have fixed this. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Oppose for the moment from Mm40 (talk).
|
- Support - looks like a pretty solid job to me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:16, 26 January 2010 [7].
- Nominator(s): Skomorokh 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is to my knowledge a comprehensive and well-sourced collection of a highly notable author's awards and nominations. I believe the prose to give sufficient context to a reader unfamiliar with the author, while covering the most salient points of the topic, and written to a professional standard. Comments, suggestions and constructive criticism welcome. Skomorokh 03:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As good as the article on William Gibson and List of works of William Gibson which Skomorokh brought to FA and FL standard. Well done, again. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple of comments:
- Center the dashes in Notes.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Make the table sortable in year, category and result.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ciao diaa, and thanks for the suggestions. I've made this change to add sortability to {{awards table2}}, the template used for tables in the article. I'm not sure how to make that column-specific. For centering the dashes, the only ways I can think of doing it are to have a default value in the template so that if nothing is entered, a centered dash appears, or alternatively to add <center></center> tags manually to the article. I'm not sure exactly how to implement the former, and the latter seems inelegant. Further suggestions welcome! Regards, Skomorokh 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps {{center}} is more elegant? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be, but it would have to be added about four dozen times, and I'm not sure the benefits (aesthetic?) are worth the effort or added complexity for future editors. I'm ambivalent on this one, it's not a big deal either way. Skomorokh 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps {{center}} is more elegant? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ciao diaa, and thanks for the suggestions. I've made this change to add sortability to {{awards table2}}, the template used for tables in the article. I'm not sure how to make that column-specific. For centering the dashes, the only ways I can think of doing it are to have a default value in the template so that if nothing is entered, a centered dash appears, or alternatively to add <center></center> tags manually to the article. I'm not sure exactly how to implement the former, and the latter seems inelegant. Further suggestions welcome! Regards, Skomorokh 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm40 has centered the dashes; the succession of left-aligned comments with centered dashes looks discordant to me, but again it's not a big deal. Skomorokh 18:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comments –
The image needs better alt text than its title.In any tables that have book titles in both italics and quotation marks without italics, the book without italics sort first in the nominated work column, followed by the ones in italics. It would be better if a way could be found to get them to sort alphabetically together.- I have several queries and concerns about the sources used (keep in mind that I have no knowledge of the subject) They may well be fine, but I feel it's better to ask now just to be safe.
Is reference 2 (randychase.com) supposed to be an online link to a published book? If not, it begs the question of why what appears to be somebody's personal website is a reliable source.- Reference 3 (Project Cyberpunk) is definitely a link to information from a book, but does it say that they have the right to republish?
- Again, does the publisher of reference 5 (brmovie.com) have the right to republish this newspaper article (assuming it isn't some official site of the paper)? If not, it should be converted to an offline reference.
The publisher in reference 7 (The Independent) should be in italics since it is a printed publication.What makes Worlds Without End a reliable source? It's crucial that this site be reliable because it is citing a few of the tables.Reference 12 should have the Seattle Post-Intelligencer added to it, since that is where the link comes from. I imagine this should also be in italics, in addition to the newspaper already given.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks greatly for your comments Giants; I've had a go at addressing them so let's see where things stand:
- The alt text for the infobox image (File:William Gibson 60th birthday portrait.jpg) reads "The head and shoulders of a middle-aged balding bespectacled white man, looking into the distance." Is this sufficient? There may be a display issue with the infobox template itself, but that should not be difficult to fix.
- Your observation that italicised works and quoted works sort separately seems accurate from what I can tell. The italicised works are standalone works – published books, mostly, whereas the quoted works are short stories that for the most part have only been published in collections. I don't know of a way of having MediaWiki treat italics and quotes the same for the purposes of sorting, but the existing division (books and short stories sorted separately) is not an arbitrary one and I think it is tolerable if nothing better can be managed.
- Speaking to the references:
- I've added the missing content (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, italics for The Independent).
- I've replaced the randychase.com and Worlds Without End references (though I wouldn't give up either as reliable sources necessarily). The new refs are Burning Chrome (the introduction to a collection of the author's works), the Center for the Study of Science Fiction and New Scientist. I hope these pass muster (and that no errors or omissions have been introduced therein).
- On the issue of links to copyrighted material hosted by third parties, namely Project Cyberpunk and brmovie.com, I have included them as an aid to the reader so that they can verify the content of the article for themselves. I would have thought the issue of rights to republication is an issue for the webhosts – surely the encyclopaedia is not liable or beyond fair use in merely linking to them?
- Thanks again for your perceptive review, and look forward to seeing more. Regards, Skomorokh 17:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Bencherlite
- To sort alphabetically by name and avoid works in quotations marks sorting after works in italics, you can put{{hs|Dogfight}}"[[Dogfight (short story)|Dogfight]]", and that will sort it under the letter D, not under a quotation mark. I think that the list ought to sort by name, not by whether the title happens to be in italics or in quotations marks.
- TRM's comments above included "If tables are sortable, we'd normally relink things each time as they are not guaranteed to appear top of the list if the table is resorted." I don't think you responded to it, but he's capped his comments as resolved, so I'm unsure what's happening with this one! I'd agree with TRM, as it happens.
- "Notes" columns aren't usually sortable, so I've tweaked {{Awards table2}} for this.
- "Related pages" would normally be entitled "See also"
- WP:LINKVIO, part of the Wikipedia:Copyrights policy, says that "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders." So the issue of rights of republication is not just a matter for the webhosts, but also for this FLC.
Otherwise, a interesting and well-presented list upon a topic about which I knew nothing! BencherliteTalk 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the helpful comments Bencherlite! I'm not sure on the linking issue (per WP:OVERLINK), but I hope to address the rest of your suggestions in the coming days. The copyrights link is interesting, but in the case of the websites, I don't "know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright" or if it's with their permission. Do we default to assuming a violation (as with images and text from website used as part of an article) or not? Like I said above, I'd prefer not to make such an assumption for our reader's sake, but will follow whatever convention the rest of the encyclopaedia uses. Mahalo, Skomorokh 13:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All works now sorted alphabetically, thanks to Bencherlite's {{hs}} suggestion, and Notes are no longer sortable. Further discussion needed on link density (see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Repeated_links) and copyright (presumption of violation or innocence?). Skomorokh 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on linking: Per WP:LINK, "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own" are a listed exception to the rules on overlinking. Thus, each row should have its information linked. The use of multiple tables, though, is an intriguing little monkey wrench thrown into the works. I honestly don't think it would be overlinking to have each title and award name linked, and regardless, I do believe that—using the Nebula Award table as an example—that the names of each award must be linked at each occurence. The Hugo Award table is a bit different, given that the link appears right above the table, but I honestly think that it does no harm to include the links and is better for the integrity of the article as a whole if links are included throughout. Other than that, I reviewed this entire list and found no errors that I could see. Well done on the list as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yo KV5, thanks for the comment. I agree that it's something of a complex case. Taking Neuromancer for example, there are 19 mentions in the article (excluding references + navbox). As it stands, the article is linked twice; once in the lead, and the second time in the first section. Linking each title would add eleven extra links to a total of 13 in an article with 12 kB of prose/tables (6.4 kB readable). On my cramped laptop monitor, the article is five screenfulls long, which means an average of two and a bit links to the same article for a given view of the page...anywhere else this would be a definite link violation. I suppose I don't understand the rationale for the exception for tables ("each row should be able to stand on its own"). What's the benefit to the reader of so much identical blue? Skomorokh 09:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have sortable tables, meaning that it's indeterminate which row will be first at any given time. That's why they all need to be linked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I understand that the sorting tables can result in different works coming first, but that does not address the link density problem. Skomorokh 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have sortable tables, meaning that it's indeterminate which row will be first at any given time. That's why they all need to be linked. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk). By the way, does my solution for centering the dashes work?
I'll be happy to support once these issues are fixed. Mm40 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review, I really appreciate it. Skomorokh 09:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support with one comment. Could you include a "XX out of YY" or something in the poll section? Currently it's unclear to me how impressive say... The 4th place polling for "The Winter Market" is. Is that 4 out of 10 candidates? 25? 100? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see what you mean. The Locus Awards don't seem to have a fixed number of nominees per category (click here and browse chronologically to see). "The Winter Market" coming 4th means it was chosen as the 1987's fourth best novelette out of however many novelettes the voters read that year, so from one point of view it would not matter if 16 more novelettes were listed subsequently or 86; the number of candidates = number of works published that year it would seem. Reading the self-description, I'm not sure how the threshold for inclusion in the poll results (i.e. 27 novels one year, 22 the next) is set, so the best we could do is XX of YY for every single poll entry. Would that make it easier for the reader to understand or more complicated? Skomorokh 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's worth either including the info (so year by year) or putting in a note describing what you've said here. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll have to look for sources to verify my hand-waving theory, and if they are not forthcoming I'll do the year by year. Thanks for your valuable help. Skomorokh 15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see what you mean. The Locus Awards don't seem to have a fixed number of nominees per category (click here and browse chronologically to see). "The Winter Market" coming 4th means it was chosen as the 1987's fourth best novelette out of however many novelettes the voters read that year, so from one point of view it would not matter if 16 more novelettes were listed subsequently or 86; the number of candidates = number of works published that year it would seem. Reading the self-description, I'm not sure how the threshold for inclusion in the poll results (i.e. 27 novels one year, 22 the next) is set, so the best we could do is XX of YY for every single poll entry. Would that make it easier for the reader to understand or more complicated? Skomorokh 08:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
Comments
|
- Support-- resolved issues, meets WP:WIAFL.--Truco 503 03:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the points below are fixed.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm on the verge of supporting, but:"Several of these garnered critical attention, receiving Hugo and Nebula Awards nominations in the categories of best short story and best novelette and being featured prominently in the annual Locus Awards reader's poll." This could be read as if the Hugo and Nebula nominations are symptoms of attention from professional critics, (or at least "semi-pro" ones in the sense used by WSFS when defining certain Hugos). The Hugos are voted for by SF fans/convention attenders and the Nebulas by SF authors. Both of these categories include critics, but I think it is better to avoid the implication that they are are awarded by critics.You mention who vote for certain awards (jury panels for the Dick, writers for others.) I think that you should include indications for others. I can tell you that the Hugos and BSFAs are both fan awards, shortlisted and voted for by the members of Worldcons and of BSFA respectively and the Clarkes are shortlisted and judged by a panel. I'm not sure about some of the others, but people at WP:SF will. --Peter cohen (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good points both Peter, thanks for the review. I'll have to dig around for independent sources, but I don't think this ought to be too difficult to fix. Skomorokh 15:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the selection methods for each of the awards and clarified the implication that Hugo/Nebula/Locus awards were tied to critical attention. Skomorokh 00:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question for the directors/delegates: is there a time limit on this review? It seems as if there are but a few resolvable issues to attend to, and one or two bullets to be bitten so barring new concerns it ought not take too long, but I've noticed that this review is the oldest on the books at the moment and I wonder if there's a chance of sudden archiving? Skomorokh 15:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no time limit as such but all nominations will last at least 10 days. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 18:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is a sudden wave of opposes or the FLC stagnates for a long time I'll keep this open. Also, I'm contacting a few reviewers to revisit this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you both; I hope to have it wrapped up by the weekend. Skomorokh 23:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is a sudden wave of opposes or the FLC stagnates for a long time I'll keep this open. Also, I'm contacting a few reviewers to revisit this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining issues from Bencherlite
Minor prose issues noted by Peter cohen (talk · contribs)More linking, as has been mentioned above.Remove links to copyvios. I've had a look at the site and can't find any indication that the works (or others) are hosted with the permission of the rights holders.Fix sorting of the problematic Locus table as suggested at the Village Pump - I had an interim solution but reverted myself when I saw the more elegant solution, but don't have time at present to do this for you.- I don't agree with Truco's suggestion about a semi-colon before "though".
- Apart from this, I think we're done. BencherliteTalk 08:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yo Bencherlite, thanks for returning; I've addressed the sorting and Peter and Staxringold's suggestions for adding context. The linking issues (which I am not to concerned about either way) remain. The issue with internal links has yet to be comprehensively stated (i.e. the happy medium between helpfulness and overlinking), while in the case of external links to copyrighted material, WP:LINKVIO seems to indicate that only links to pages which are known to be in breach of copyright ought be removed, and I'm not sure anyone here has claimed such knowledge. Cheers, Skomorokh 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yo Skomorokh. Well, copyvio sites are hardly likely to say "we're hosting this in breach of copyright", are they? There is an awful lot of material on the site with no details of copyright given. I can't believe that Gibson has consented to lots of his work being hosted for free. Using common sense, I think we can fairly say that it's a linkvio site. At the risk of sounding like the lawyer I am in my day job (!), knowledge can be taken to include shutting one's eyes to the obvious... On linking, I could understand if you were linking once within the awards section and once within the polls section, but you're not: some are relinked in the polls, others aren't. If people read through the tables and think, "Oh, I wonder why that book won? What's it about?", they then have to hunt back to see if there is in fact a link, and if so where it is. At present, you're assuming that people will "jump off" the first time that a book/story is mentioned, when they may not want to until later on. I think the list as it stands is too light on helpfulness. Even WP:LINK allows relinking "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal and moral angles are interesting here, but I think ultimately we are in a grey area ultimately pitting copyfighting against respectability. As it happens, Gibson does not mind unauthorised reproductions and derivative works as long as they don't make any money (my income from the list has been disappointingly flatlining so far). The linkvio issue has come up at another peer review I have a hand in so I think I will cave on this one and remove the links in deference to what seems to be the prevailing convention. I don't see an easy answer to the link density issue with the unforseseen complexity of multiple repetitive small tables, but I will revisit it shortly. Skomorokh 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, all issues resolved. Well done for all your hard work before, and during, this FLC. BencherliteTalk 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The legal and moral angles are interesting here, but I think ultimately we are in a grey area ultimately pitting copyfighting against respectability. As it happens, Gibson does not mind unauthorised reproductions and derivative works as long as they don't make any money (my income from the list has been disappointingly flatlining so far). The linkvio issue has come up at another peer review I have a hand in so I think I will cave on this one and remove the links in deference to what seems to be the prevailing convention. I don't see an easy answer to the link density issue with the unforseseen complexity of multiple repetitive small tables, but I will revisit it shortly. Skomorokh 15:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yo Skomorokh. Well, copyvio sites are hardly likely to say "we're hosting this in breach of copyright", are they? There is an awful lot of material on the site with no details of copyright given. I can't believe that Gibson has consented to lots of his work being hosted for free. Using common sense, I think we can fairly say that it's a linkvio site. At the risk of sounding like the lawyer I am in my day job (!), knowledge can be taken to include shutting one's eyes to the obvious... On linking, I could understand if you were linking once within the awards section and once within the polls section, but you're not: some are relinked in the polls, others aren't. If people read through the tables and think, "Oh, I wonder why that book won? What's it about?", they then have to hunt back to see if there is in fact a link, and if so where it is. At present, you're assuming that people will "jump off" the first time that a book/story is mentioned, when they may not want to until later on. I think the list as it stands is too light on helpfulness. Even WP:LINK allows relinking "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." Regards, BencherliteTalk 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no further problems. Reywas92Talk 01:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I see nothing really wrong with it, though the article could do with internal linking some of the stuff in the References as by example you don't link the British Science Fiction Association at all within the references. Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the links to the questionably-hosted copyrighted works and increased the internal link density of the list such that each work is linked approximately once per screenful or major section. Skomorokh 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 04:46, 21 January 2010 [8].
- Nominator(s): Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FLC criteria as it is based on the templates set forth in previous FLC on similar topics (List of St. Louis MetroLink stations, List of Bay Area Rapid Transit stations and List of Vancouver SkyTrain stations). Patriarca12 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal (sock) Master · talk 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 05:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support ≈ Chamal (sock) Master · talk 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
Arsenikk (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Arsenikk (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments
- Is it possible to avoid placing footnotes in the middle of sentences?
- Additionally, all stations include works of public art as part of the DART Station Art & Design Program. - "Additionally" is redundant here.
- 2-column reflist?
Otherwise good. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; thanks for quickly responding. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments addressed. Thanks for taking a look at this! Patriarca12 (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The map needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added to the map. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but what you added doesn't really describe the content of the map. It doesn't help the reader to describe the appearance of the symbols. See the two examples given in the link I provided. If you still have trouble, contact Eubulides (talk · contribs), the expert on alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the other alt texts need a bit of improvement. Don't use proper nouns that can't be verified by looking at the image (e.g. "DART" and names of stations). For example, in "the DART Light Rail Pearl Station island platform and canopy in the median of the street with only a few passengers present" just say "A light rail station island platform..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I got it this time. Proper nouns removed except for Las Colinas from all alt texts and map text formatted like one of the ones shown in the suggested link. Thanks for the help! Patriarca12 (talk) 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the other alt texts need a bit of improvement. Don't use proper nouns that can't be verified by looking at the image (e.g. "DART" and names of stations). For example, in "the DART Light Rail Pearl Station island platform and canopy in the median of the street with only a few passengers present" just say "A light rail station island platform..." Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but what you added doesn't really describe the content of the map. It doesn't help the reader to describe the appearance of the symbols. See the two examples given in the link I provided. If you still have trouble, contact Eubulides (talk · contribs), the expert on alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text added to the map. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what makes http://www.angelahunt.com/2005/02/15/dallas-area-rapid-transit-meeting/ reliable?Dabomb87 (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Replaced the council woman's website with a citation from the Dallas Morning News. Patriarca12 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Pretty solid work, I can't find anything in it which is an issue. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm afraid the lead map File:Dfwrailmap2.1.png is useless at the resolution in this article, and it won't help to increase the size (unless it's made wayy to large). The map's alt text "Diagram illustrating transit lines and stations as described in the text" is useless as well. If the map is summarizing an important part of the article that is not immediately adjacent to the map, then the map's alt text should provide a similar summary. But anyway, I suggest that the map be replaced by a route diagram; that'd be much easier to read. Eubulides (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the map altogether as maps have not been included in all of the FL's of rail stations (BART stations & Caltrain stations as examples of this). Patriarca12 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [9].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs, Scorpion0422
Assuming the nomination below for Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award passes, this list will be the final piece in a now 4-month project of WP:MLB to create a featured topic for MLB Awards. The list has been touched up by several experienced editors, and I think this last piece is ready! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added note: KV5 just reminded me, Scorpion0422 deserves major credit on this list as well! He really put a lot of work in before I finished this baby up. I'll leave a note on his talk page, but he deserves some of this FL credit regardless.
- Also added note: This project has actually been ongoing since March 2009 :-p. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but little did you know what you were starting. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 15:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I did; this was an unspoken goal at the beginning. I just wasn't counting on so much valuable help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
|
- Support — Cheers, and hats off to the (hopeful) FT! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those lists that I started working on, but never got around to finishing it off. Why were the references from the MLB website replaced? I know third party sources are usually considered better than official sources, but I thought that in this case, it was acceptable. I can't say that I like the colour coding (though it has since been removed). Is it worth mentioning that the Blue Jays are the only team from outside the States to appear in/win a World Series? Should there be some mention of the pre-Official World Series champions? -- Scorpion0422 19:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the MLB references because they had far less information about the series', and MLB.com had a couple different formats for the links which left me worried that they would migrate and kill off some of the links. I can add the Blue Jays note, that's a solid point. As for pre-WS champs, I dunno. There is a disambig to them at the top. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Excellent job with a list I've been hoping would come here for a while (please note that I did add a reference, in case the closers consider me an involved party at this point). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments about naming conventions |
|---|
*Comment TRM, sorry, but "List of World Series baseball champions" sounds very awkward. Other than the facts that the World Series is the original World Series and the main article is World Series, rendering "baseball" superfluous, the title doesn't even make sense grammatically. You wouldn't say List of Super Bowl football champions or List of Stanley Cup hockey champions. "World Series" is incorrectly being used as an adjective when it's not one. Reywas92Talk 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, no worries. It just seemed odd to me that the hatnote did include baseball and this didn't. I guess I'm seriously North American-outvoted here! Move along, nothing more to see. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Nice job! It seems everything has already been taken care of. Reywas92Talk 00:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pretty solid job, I can't find anything to pick out of it. Afro (Not a Talk Page) - Afkatk 07:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the appearances by team column, why is the Win % column right aligned when everything else is center aligned? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [10].
- Nominator(s): Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second-to-last topic in WP:BASEBALL's featured topic drives for award. I have two concerns with the article. The first is the tie for the 1979 NL award; I was trying to use colspan, but according to Help:Sorting, that doesn't work. Additionally, I'm not sure if the lead is long enough, but I can expand it if need be. I hope this doesn't die due to a lack of reviews. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
;Comments from KV5
|
Great work, Mm40! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, now we just need Starx to finish WS champs. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- *shakes fist at uppity teens ruining his lawn* Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold |
|---|
*Comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 15:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does it look now. I realize there are a few missing symbols, I'm adding them now. Mm40 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comment The only problem I have is that all of the content is under a single header. As the title says the list is about award winners, it is unnecessary to have a header saying the entire article is about award winners. Make the current subsections top-level sections. Reywas92Talk 17:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Another top-quality list, like the other MLB awards lists that have come through here lately. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - what Giants said. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the Detroit Tigers' widely disliked Ty Cobb" Can you source "widely disliked" (and is it even necessary)? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources added. I think it may serve as reasoning for a prise being awarded to both players; Chalmers wouldn't give the award only to an unpopular player. Mm40 (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is it possible to place tot he Barry Bonds picture actually in the Key section? it seems a bit out of place hovering next to the Table of Contents, it might not even need a fix its just personal curiosity as to why its placed there. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 10:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there are 2 Barry Bonds pictures? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really should sleep some time, done. Mm40 (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there are 2 Barry Bonds pictures? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have nothing now standing out which concerns me. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done...Modernist (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [11].
- Nominator(s): Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list, with proper references and I think it meets all the other criteria required for review. Kumioko (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Just a few minor technical points:
emdashes (for example in Korean War section) should be unspaced according to WP:DASH;
- Done--Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't believe this one has been covered off on yet. There are still spaces between the emdashes in the Korean War section. To fix it, you need to remove the non breaking space mark up code. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Know I think I have it.--Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't believe this one has been covered off on yet. There are still spaces between the emdashes in the Korean War section. To fix it, you need to remove the non breaking space mark up code. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, there is irregular capitalisation of the word "As" (as in as of);
- Done This was due to the use of the as of template but I removed it. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
in the lead, as you mention the first recipient, would it make sense to mention the last recipient?
- Done- I expanded the lead a little and added this to it. --Kumioko (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is some inconsistency in style regarding US and U.S.;
- "is there a preference to which is used? --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, if using American English (which this article does) U.S. would be preferred, but I don't think it is required. I normally use "US" myself, but I don't think it matters so long as there is consistency. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) might be able to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Kumioko (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, if using American English (which this article does) U.S. would be preferred, but I don't think it is required. I normally use "US" myself, but I don't think it matters so long as there is consistency. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) might be able to help. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is some inconsistency in how you deal with numbers greater than 10. In the lead you use numbers (e.g. "31 have been awarded", but elsewhere you use letters (e.g. in World War II "twenty-four Asian American awardees, twenty-one...".
- Is there a preference to how these should be handled. I believe I read something were numbers less than ten were spelled out but numbers larger than ten were displayed as numbers. I can't seem to find that at the moment though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are correct. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words states that the general rule is to spell numbers below ten, and use numbers for 10 and above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done- I think I fixed these. --Kumioko (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that you are correct. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words states that the general rule is to spell numbers below ten, and use numbers for 10 and above. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a preference to how these should be handled. I believe I read something were numbers less than ten were spelled out but numbers larger than ten were displayed as numbers. I can't seem to find that at the moment though. --Kumioko (talk) 04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, I think it should be okay. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All my concerns have been dealt with, so I have changed my comments to support. Well done. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Support. Well written, I have a few things. Arsonal (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Add a comma after "September 17, 2009" as the numbers 2009 and 31 next to each other would look slightly awkward if the inline citation were not there.
- Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be advisable to wikilink the first instance of "Asian American" so as to provide context of the term's scope.
- Done. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that some of the other Medal of Honor lists contain a column for "Place of Action". I would like to see the information on this list as well.
- Done - I also linked all the locations that had a page. --Kumioko (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The World War II section mentions: "Of the Asian American recipients during World War II, only two were officers." Forgive me for not being knowledgeable, but at what rank does a military personnel become an officer? This might need to be clarified.
- Done. Rather than add a huge chunk of text that only loosely related to the topic and was information I added this as a note. --Kumioko (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The explanation is nice, but it still doesn't tell me which two persons are officers because I know nothing about rank hierarchy. Arsonal (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified it some more but please let me know if you want me to change anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I tweaked it to reduce redundancy on Inouye's information. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is ref 22 needed? It seems like additional information and doesn't connect well with the main prose. Arsonal (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well written, although I did notice a disambig link when I ran the dab checker, can you locate that and remove it if at all possible? TomStar81 (Talk) 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [12].
- Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome all comments. Thanks, Pyrrhus16 16:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
CommentsSupport
- were issued in 1990, to → were issued in 1990 to
- Done.
- The next year, in 1991, four more → The next year four more
- Done.
A very short list withour much information, but I think you've got everything and it looks nice. Reywas92Talk 03:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Pyrrhus16 19:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
Overall, the article seems a bit thin, but I assume there's nothing else that can be added. Mm40 (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Although a free replacement for reference #9 would be nice. Also, any critical response to the award of any kind? For example, the list is pretty heavily US/UK-centric and, more generally, Western. I'd say Khaled is as much a Legend as Streisand is, eg. And I'm hardly a music critic. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed ref 9 and re-used a free reference which was already in the article. I have found no critical commentary on the award in any sources. Thanks. Pyrrhus16 21:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't find anything in this article which would raise any issues. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 18:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:57, 20 January 2010 [13].
- Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the last FLC, I have added alt text, removed information not covered in the references, and improved the related articles. Reywas92Talk 22:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. It was in the templated map. Reywas92Talk 00:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
I will continue my review when I feel the issues above as well as the issues from the previous FLC have been resolved.—NMajdan•talk 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Well, it has been discussed below (and argued some elsewhere, previously) that by the nature of this list being an index of well-sourced articles, the list-article can be regarded as well-sourced although not every unsurprising detail is explicitly sourced on this page. For example, discussed below is the 210 foot height of the memorial in "Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD" and the fact that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. Note User:Nev1 who focussed on detailed referencing in earlier review seems receptive about this. If a fact is surprising or controversial, I agree it should be explicitly sourced, as in any article. Non-surprising/non-important/non-controversial facts do not require in-line citations in wikipedia articles, including FAs. So, I would hope you could focus your concern on facts that you feel need sourcing, and not be unduly irked by a gotcha-type discovery about something that in the larger scheme is not so important. I do appreciate your attention to detail here and elsewhere, though, and I don't mean to imply that good sourcing is unimportant for Featured Lists. It clearly is important; I just think there can be overkill in sourcing that makes some list-articles less helpful for readers. doncram (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sourcing is my only concern for this article. I don't completely disagree with you and as long as the FL directors are aware of this, then this list has my support.—NMajdan•talk 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. There shouldn't be any other problems. Reywas92Talk 00:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sourcing is my only concern for this article. I don't completely disagree with you and as long as the FL directors are aware of this, then this list has my support.—NMajdan•talk 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it has been discussed below (and argued some elsewhere, previously) that by the nature of this list being an index of well-sourced articles, the list-article can be regarded as well-sourced although not every unsurprising detail is explicitly sourced on this page. For example, discussed below is the 210 foot height of the memorial in "Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD" and the fact that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. Note User:Nev1 who focussed on detailed referencing in earlier review seems receptive about this. If a fact is surprising or controversial, I agree it should be explicitly sourced, as in any article. Non-surprising/non-important/non-controversial facts do not require in-line citations in wikipedia articles, including FAs. So, I would hope you could focus your concern on facts that you feel need sourcing, and not be unduly irked by a gotcha-type discovery about something that in the larger scheme is not so important. I do appreciate your attention to detail here and elsewhere, though, and I don't mean to imply that good sourcing is unimportant for Featured Lists. It clearly is important; I just think there can be overkill in sourcing that makes some list-articles less helpful for readers. doncram (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - nice illustrated list, but a few things for me...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help! Reywas92Talk 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Ordering of first column is odd, despite the note, and means you cannot (as far as I can tell) restore the list back to numerical order. Can you do it?
- The number column is also sortable.
- Yes, that's what I mean, the number column does not sort numerically so once you've sorted per something, you can never get the list back in numerical order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what you mean. If I play with the sorting of the other columns and then go back to the number it's in the original numerical order.
- Not in Safari. It sorts four ways. I would guess it's down to the symbols you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it would make a difference just by browser. It works for me, so I wouldn't how to fix it without taking out the important symbols. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you think all browsers work the same way! (for instance this site seems to imply there could be various issues). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be rude about it. I would expect the sorting to be more of a Wikipedia thing. Could you please play with it? Obviously I would have no idea if it works for you unless I strip it down to just the numbers, which shouldn't be done. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, if it appeared I was I being rude then forgive me. Just that being a Mac user we're often overlooked since we utterly never use "Internet Explorer". Sometimes the way "we" see the internet is different from everyone else. All I'm saying is that there seem to be issues. Don't forget, it's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which brings up a question. Is there an easy way to see how a page renders with different browsers? I know with Firefox and IE tab, I can easily look at those two browsers. But I don't know how to check Safari short of downloading it, which I am not inclined to do.—NMajdan•talk 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since it's free and if you really wanted to address the cross-browser issues, then downloading it seems the easiest and most comprehensive way of doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which brings up a question. Is there an easy way to see how a page renders with different browsers? I know with Firefox and IE tab, I can easily look at those two browsers. But I don't know how to check Safari short of downloading it, which I am not inclined to do.—NMajdan•talk 01:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, if it appeared I was I being rude then forgive me. Just that being a Mac user we're often overlooked since we utterly never use "Internet Explorer". Sometimes the way "we" see the internet is different from everyone else. All I'm saying is that there seem to be issues. Don't forget, it's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be rude about it. I would expect the sorting to be more of a Wikipedia thing. Could you please play with it? Obviously I would have no idea if it works for you unless I strip it down to just the numbers, which shouldn't be done. Reywas92Talk 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like you need to replace the {{NHLsm}} and {{NRHPlegend}} templates with something that sorts correctly. I'm also not a fan of how the latter links you to Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend, which is just another key/legend. Seems like that whole thing would violate WP:ACCESS.—NMajdan•talk 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed all to the NHRPlegend template. I'll keep testing the template to see if I get anywhere. Reywas92Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether NMajdan refers to some link to the Wikipedia:NRHP colors legend other than the one in a footnote phrase "defined here", from footnote explaining the first column. Given that the article has an explicit key section defining the only two colors used in this article, the "defined here" link to the NRHP colors legend is not needed though. The footnote explaining the first column is still needed, to explain the ordering is by first "significant" word and that the numbering should not be interpreted as something too highly significant. It seems the table is sorting properly by that number column now. By the way, the table can be sorted to its original order in any browser, I believe, by refreshing the page. But it is helpful to have the first column be sortable to provide that option of sorting explicitly. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed all to the NHRPlegend template. I'll keep testing the template to see if I get anywhere. Reywas92Talk 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised you think all browsers work the same way! (for instance this site seems to imply there could be various issues). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it would make a difference just by browser. It works for me, so I wouldn't how to fix it without taking out the important symbols. Reywas92Talk 20:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not in Safari. It sorts four ways. I would guess it's down to the symbols you're using. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what you mean. If I play with the sorting of the other columns and then go back to the number it's in the original numerical order.
- Yes, that's what I mean, the number column does not sort numerically so once you've sorted per something, you can never get the list back in numerical order. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The number column is also sortable.
Other Comments
- The article seems well developed on explaining the NHL designation process. For example the guidelines at Title 36, Part 65 are linked, although maybe with one extra step required to get to that (not sure if my linking here will work, either). The statements all seem accurate to me, except maybe there is a little bit of over-emphasis on the National Park Service staff making the recommendations. The guidelines anticipate that state officials and "other parties" other than National officials will make recommendations (which then the NPS would evaluate and come to its own recommendations about). The possibility that state officials or private owners will nominate a property for NHL designation should be admitted, as that does happen (or technically they may be "recommending" rather than "nominating" their property for NHL status, if "nominating" is technically to be reserved for referring to the National Park Service's step in the process, while "nominating" as an English language word is what they are in fact doing).
- Indiana is different than many other states in that none of its NHLs are also National Historic Sites, National Historical Parks, or other types of National Park Service units covering sites of historical importance. Indiana does have two non-NHL, NRHP-listed NPS units, the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, which should be at least mentioned in the article, IMO. The National Park Service does make a point of mentioning these two non-NHLs in its official list of NHLs (the mention is on page 114 of the nation-wide PDF list that is the first reference in this article, or on the same page of the Indiana-specific PDF list of NHLs that the NPS also provides, not linked from this article). I believe it is appropriate to follow their lead in the Wikipedia list-article about the Indiana NHLs. These two sites are comparable to a NHL and, if the sites were not NPS units, they probably would be designated as NHLs. There is no specific source I can point to right now about this, but places which are NPS units already often do not get NHL designation, presumably because there are no significant additional benefits in terms of tax incentives or otherwise, for a site that is already a NPS unit. The George Rogers Clark National Historical Park and the Lincoln boyhood memorials are the only other contenders, anyhow, besides the NHLs, for being among the most important historic sites in the state that are recognized by the Federal government. This list-article, mainly covering the NHLs, is improved by covering these 2 in addition, so that it covers all of the most highly recognized sites of national historical importance in the state. I personally would want to include location information including coordinates for these, so that the Google/Bing map links are more useful to readers, too. doncram (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this was discussed in the previous FLC. With all due respect, I think that only NHLs should be listed on this List of NHLs. And, in fact, the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial is both a NMEM and NHL, but it is called Lincoln Boyhood Home. Reywas92Talk 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just did notice the Lincoln Boyhood Home is both an NHL and NMEM too, and I added NMEM color and a symbol to the Key and changed its entry to show that.
- Yes, whether to separately list the non-NHL NPS historic places has been discussed some before; i have not revisited what was said in the previous FLC. Reywas92, I take it your view is that having a separate table for them (just the George Rogers Clark National Historical Park in this case) is not what you want. While I would prefer having that, and including location and coordinates info for it, as I believe that readers interested in NHLs in IN are well served by having that. It is a lesser step, though, to just include mention of the place in the text. Can we just do that, which is part of clarifying what the NHLs are, anyhow (they are among the most important nationally-recognized historic sites in the state, but there's at least one other roughly equivalent site). I'll try making an edit to add some mention somewhere, to have something specific to discuss. doncram (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see in the first FLC, Reywas92, your view was "I wouldn't oppose a see also or a mention in the lead, but these do not belong in an NHL list". I tried adding a mention of the one NHP into the text. Is that okay? doncram (talk)
- Looks fine to me. Thanks! But for Lincoln, it is both an NHLD and NMEM. How should that be marked with the colors? I think it should use the NHLD color because that is what the list is describing. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the table is all NHLs/NHLDs, that is understood. Whether one is further a relatively rarer National Historic Site, National Memorial, etc. is usefully indicated by a color of that. That is how the wider system of NRHP lists is devised: in NRHP lists, all NRHPs are indeed NRHPs but we don't apply just NRHP blue color to every one, we have used different colors to indicate NHLs and NHLDs and NHSs etc amongst the mere NRHPs. For consistency with use of the colors in all other NRHP lists and all other NHL lists, this one should show the relatively rare NMEM color. doncram (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks fine to me. Thanks! But for Lincoln, it is both an NHLD and NMEM. How should that be marked with the colors? I think it should use the NHLD color because that is what the list is describing. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe this was discussed in the previous FLC. With all due respect, I think that only NHLs should be listed on this List of NHLs. And, in fact, the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial is both a NMEM and NHL, but it is called Lincoln Boyhood Home. Reywas92Talk 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About sourcing: the issue on sourcing opened in the first FLC, mostly in comments by Nev1, seems still open. There are facts stated in many of the descriptions which do not appear in the NHL summary webpages that are given as the sources. For example, specifics in the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza Historic District entry do not appear in its NHL summary webpage. As I stated in the closing minutes of the first FLC, I would support the descriptions being summaries of their corresponding articles as they are now, without representation that they are fully sourced from the NHL summary webpages (which is not accurate). I do want to support the FL candidacy of this article without requiring excessive footnoting, without requiring all the references that appear in each of the corresponding articles. But I would hope FL status be given with some more explicit understanding consensus of what's being done. doncram (talk) 07:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I had removed excess information not in the references so nearly everything should be covered by them. Reywas92Talk 23:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, to be clear for one example, the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza HD description mentions" it is 210 feet (64 m) tall" and that is not in the NHL summary webpage which is footnoted. I personally do not feel that the height is a controversial assertion requiring a separate footnote to the NRHP document, say. I assume the height is accurately/adequately sourced in the corresponding article about the HD. I think this is fine, but then I would prefer for a footnote to the title of the descriptions column be given that clarifies some non-controversial facts are sourced in the corresponding articles. I had composed and/or applied such a footnote in the NY NHL list-article. doncram (talk) 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To conclude, I support promotion to FL. I've reviewed the article again, think it is very good, and I have no remaining concerns. Nice job! doncram (talk) 05:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Quick comments –
|
- Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 22:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support From a quick sample of the sources (I don't have time to do as detailed a review as I did last time), but they seem mostly sorted. Most examples of prose being lifted straight from the source and of details creeping in from elsewhere have been addressed. I'd prefer it to be dealt with completely, and believe that with just 42 sources, the list is a long way from being "excessively" footnoted, but the height issue is incredibly minor. After the comments from everyone else, and as my own concerns from the previous FLC have been addressed, I am happy to support the list. Good job Reywas, I'm glad to see this back at FLC! Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please address the sourcing issue brought up by NMajdan. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comment - in the top paragraph in brackets you list National Historic Landmarks as NHLs but throughout the lead you list it without the s, as trivial as it may seem I could see this confusing some readers, just wondering if it would be better to change this. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 17:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? NHLs is plural and NHL is singular.
- "here are 37 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in the state", shouldn't that have no s on it? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- National Historic Landmarks is plural so the abbreviation will also be plural: NHLs. Reywas92Talk 22:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "here are 37 National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) in the state", shouldn't that have no s on it? Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? NHLs is plural and NHL is singular.
- Quick Comment2 - I was just wondering why isn't the Light blue accompanied by a symbol?, since I've been told a color should be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk
- Having no symbol is the symbol. Teal + dagger = NHL District, Grey + lemniscate = National Memorial and NHl, and Light blue = NHL. It would be unnecessary for everything to have a symbol; we just like the colors. Reywas92Talk 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well early last year someone in a project I'm associated with WP:PW was told by Dabomb here "per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons." so unless I'm unaware of a change, I don't know why it shouldn't also be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for being specific with your reference to Dabomb's previous comment. I went and looked at what he said, and he did say it that way, but the [[example he linked to was one where most of the cells were not colored, and the colored cells were different, needing explanation by a color/symbol key. Here in this list, the light blue coloring is the base coloring, and only the differently colored cells need explanation. --doncram (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well early last year someone in a project I'm associated with WP:PW was told by Dabomb here "per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons." so unless I'm unaware of a change, I don't know why it shouldn't also be accompanied by a symbol. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 19:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having no symbol is the symbol. Teal + dagger = NHL District, Grey + lemniscate = National Memorial and NHl, and Light blue = NHL. It would be unnecessary for everything to have a symbol; we just like the colors. Reywas92Talk 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well I guess I have no outstanding or minor issues with the article. Afro (Not a Terrible Joke) - Afkatk 09:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [14].
- Nominator(s): WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was about time I pulled my finger out and did some work on a list. I'm nominating this list for FLC as part of the WP:SOUNDERS drive towards a featured topic. While I'm not exactly sure which articles such a young club would need to include in a topic, it's pretty clear that this one would be part of it. I think I've learnt from my last FLC, so hopefully this one will involve less work. For what it's worth, I'm in the wikicup. Thanks in advance, WFCforLife (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
This list is great work. The only thing that I might like to see is the key moved into a table, but it's not a deal-breaker. Extremely well-done. Support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I experimented with a table for a similar key a while back, but I couldn't get one that I was happy with. I've split it into columns now, which hopefully does the job. WFCforLife (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "players who only appeared for the team in other competitions are noted at the bottom of the page." - I can't see any.....
- Removed. Previously there were four players listed, but it was a cross between trivia and synthesis, so I just removed it altogether.
- Any reason for the goalies to be listed separately?
- I figured this would come up. For English clubs we don't. But as far as I'm concerned, the reason for this is that we simply didn't record these statistics in the 19th century, and that it would be inconsistent to have this detail just for (please forgive the phrase) internet-era players. With Seattle Sounders there is no such problem, as they are all internet-era players and the MLS goes out of its way to compile these statistics. The options were therefore:
- To ignore the available and more relevant statistics, and include goalkeepers in the same table as everyone else.
- To list the goalkeepers in the main table, but also have a side table for them.
- To have seperate tables for goalkeepers and other players.
- My opinion is that the third option is the best.
- Spelling error in "conceded" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Thanks for the feedback. WFCforLife (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - can't see any issues, your point about goalie stats makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from SkotyWA
- I fixed one reference to the team where "Sounders" was used instead of "Sounders FC".
- Do we have any pictures of the players in Sounders FC uniforms that we can use? Here are some pictures I uploaded that might work with the list: 1, 2, or 3. Will any of these fit?
- The Ljungberg picture fits nicely with the international section. Perhaps the first one could go in the lead? WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I agree. The Ljungberg picture fits well for that section. Do any of the pictures I pointed you at seem viable for the lead? If not, I can keep looking. Some sort of group photo or lineup photo would go well I think with an article which lists players on a team. --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't think the pictures I took will fit (which is understandable, I'm a terrible photographer), here is a link to a flickr.com query which will return all photos available under an acceptable license which allows us to port it to Wikipedia. I've already done the port of this photo (here) as it could be used in this list or in the season article. --SkotyWAT|C 18:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that your first picture is a good one for the list. The image quality isn't as good as the flickr one you've linked to, but it's a great shot. I'm happy either way. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the removal of the misc section. I agree that header text makes it feel a lot like {{trivia}}, so I think that needs to change (perhaps "Other Players" or "Additional Players"). There needs to be a section where we can list players who have played for the team, but may not have played in a league match. Given that Sounders FC competes in the U.S. Open Cup every year, and will often be in the Champions League or SuperLiga, there needs to be a section (probably without stats since they can't be sourced) to list players that only appear in those competitions.
- As I noted on the talk page, there are also some players that have appeared only in friendlies. I feel that in order for the list to be complete, it needs to list all players that have represented Sounders FC on the field in any competition (as long as there is a reliable source proving it of course).
- If a Barcelona or Chelsea player's only ever appearances for their respective clubs were in friendlies, they would not be listed. I'm not trying to detract from the significance of those matches, but they were non-competitive fixtures. Comprehensive statistics from all friendlies are not going to exist (although even if they did, I imagine there would still be opposition to including them).
- That's fair. Let's just go for players appearing in competetive competition. --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the Lamar Hunt Open appareances, it was synthesis. If there was a reliable source giving a player's overall appearances in cup competitions, I would support including that information in the main table somehow. The issue is that we can't use every single match report. WFCforLife (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What if we don't try to say how many times they appeard, only that they appeared at least once in competetive competition, just not league competition. Then it becomes a simple list of players with a reference proving one of their appearances (rather than all). --SkotyWAT|C 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a good solution. I'll have a go at it tonight. WFCforLife (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, great work WFCforLife taking a flat list and turning it into this high quality content. --SkotyWAT|C 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a stab at swapping out the picture with the one you said might fit and adding back the "Additional Players" info with a preamble explaining the nature of this additional short list of players. Let me know if this works for you and please make any adjustments to this as you see fit. --SkotyWAT|C 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - with the discussion below it appears that my additions of a different image in the lead, and the "Additional Players" section will stick. Given that, I am now in full support of this list becoming a featured list. I feel that it is a complete list and provides enough context in prose to help the user understand it's relevance. Excellent work WFCforLife! --SkotyWAT|C 16:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Cptnono
Support with the discussion below concluded.
Lots of hurdles on this one. You met both Wikipeida's standards on inclusion and sourcing while being thorough. A few things I really like:
- How Open Cup appearances are mentioned even though those players did not go on to do anything league wise. This is especially important since they won that tournament. It is also the top domestic cup competition (the MLS Cup is a postseason) so other guys should be worthy of mention in the future.
- You perfectly addressed the international pool (which came up just a couple weeks ago!)
- You link to the previous but not technically associated Sounders.
- "Players" was a good choice. MLS owns the rights to players which causes confusion. Both Dragavon's and Montero's status has been questioned but they certainly trained and took the field with the team.
- Keller's stats and card (I searched and searched for a table that wasn't GK only but found nothing)
- Good balance between English variations. It is more than "z" and "s". "Shut out" and "clean sheet" makes a potentially annoying footnote but it provides some clarifying info.
- Good fact checking. I'm going to go over it one more time to make sure none were missed but so far excellent. I get to see the local paper everyday and I doubt I could have made this as clean and accurate as you have.
A couple quick notes:
- You use "Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF)." in the first ref then "RSSSF" afterward. I like that but haven't seen it done in the references list. Is that standard? If so, does this need to be done to Major League Soccer in the refs?
- I think they're different situations. The RSSSF is known exclusively as that, but at previous FLCs it has been pointed out that it should still be expanded at least once. With Major League Soccer, the long form and acronym are used interchangeably. We already have mlsnet.com, so spelling out major league soccer adds more value in my opinion. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I am going to fix one instance (rest look fine).
- I think they're different situations. The RSSSF is known exclusively as that, but at previous FLCs it has been pointed out that it should still be expanded at least once. With Major League Soccer, the long form and acronym are used interchangeably. We already have mlsnet.com, so spelling out major league soccer adds more value in my opinion. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should a date be added to the lead image since that is a different starting squad than some games in the past and presumably in the future? I also noticed that it was a little blurry. The only other on Flickr features a guys butt in center frame, so this one is good to have overall.
- At 220px it's okay, but hopefully a better quality image will find its way onto wikipedia in 2010. I'm of the mind that it's better to use an inferior quality image that shows exactly what you want, than a high-quality but somewhat irrelevant one. I'm not sure of the Barcelona date, but I've no objection to that being added. Although the fact that it was against Barcelona is probably irrelevant. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed.
- At 220px it's okay, but hopefully a better quality image will find its way onto wikipedia in 2010. I'm of the mind that it's better to use an inferior quality image that shows exactly what you want, than a high-quality but somewhat irrelevant one. I'm not sure of the Barcelona date, but I've no objection to that being added. Although the fact that it was against Barcelona is probably irrelevant. WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be ridiculous to make a note on who is and who is not active? (let me know if this is better left for a future footy MoS discussion)
- It would at the moment, because they're all still playing as far as I'm aware. Once the roster has been finalised, I'll introduce a key denoting 2010 Sounders, worded along the lines of the one in List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season. Once a few players have retired it may be worth looking at this again.
- A handful are gone. A couple were released mid season. In this offseason, French dude got picked up by Philly and another is not expected to be back. All that aside, that is for discussion on the talk page or at the footy project since this list doesn't make claims to who is active. This might need to be addressed as it grows.
- It would at the moment, because they're all still playing as far as I'm aware. Once the roster has been finalised, I'll introduce a key denoting 2010 Sounders, worded along the lines of the one in List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season. Once a few players have retired it may be worth looking at this again.
WFCforLife (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overall you took his to a level that I did not expect and that is awesome.Cptnono (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bias from being a fan and wishing you the best of luck in the Cup aside, this is a great list and easily meets (if not surpassing) the requirements seen at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Comprehensive and clearly laid out. Nice work. Cptnono (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – Looks like a solid list overall. Only found a few minor points upon inspection. First, there are a couple of "also"s in the Additional players section that strike me as redundant; the one after "In addition..." is particularly blatant. In the references, FIFA should probably be spelled out, and references 12 and 13 should use italics for their publishers, since they are newspapers. I'm sure these will be taken care of shortly, and this can be considered a full support after that occurs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, except for the spelling out of FIFA. Where the wikipedia article is actually located at the acronym, I consider that acronym common enough (or the name obscure enough) to use the acronym unqualified if it is only used in the references. WFCforLife (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [15].
- Nominator(s): Neonblak talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standard for FL. Of course, if the reviewers notice any corrections, or grammar, that needs changing, I will rectify them quickly. Neonblak talk - 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great suggestions, I implemented most of them, but have a few questions/comments.
|
- Support - per the positive resolution of comments made by myself and others towards the goal. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Articles should be created for the redlinks. Wizardman 05:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If possible, yes, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not essential yes, but since all of them were able to be created I would have preferred it. Giants' issues are fixed and the image problem doesn't seem too big to me, it's pretty obvious they're public domain (at least pd-us), so Support. Wizardman 18:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If possible, yes, but it's not essential. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great work! You should remind the reviewers who have capped their comments to stop by again! Staxringold talkcontribs 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [16].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. I am not the major contributor, but have permission from contributor to nominate.[17][18] —Chris!c/t 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
—NMajdan•talk 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 18:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
I think the table would be much stronger and more interesting if some basic statistics were included. Items like points, rebounds and assists per game would make great use of the sorting, and a few facts from these categories could also help spice up the lead.What is citing the part about the Hornets relocating to New Orleans?"The Bobcats are the only team to have never advanced into the playoffs." This is true regarding the 30 current teams, but there are defunct teams that never made a playoff appearance. The reference confirms this."with Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, being the first foreign-born player to be drafted by the Bobcats." The "with... being" structure isn't great, and "drafted" is used in a repetitive way. How about "; Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, was the first foreign-born player to be selected by the Bobcats."- Looking at my sentence proposal above, it still might be confusing to non-NBA fans who don't know what the NBA Draft is. In addition to improving the structure, I'd like to see a specific mention of the NBA Draft for clarity's sake.
In the table headings, decapitalize Club as a non-proper noun.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done all—Chris!c/t 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is Raja Bell listed as 2009-2010, and others are listed as 2009-present? Also some players are listed as having joined the team in 2010. --Pgp688 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is based on the source. And it listed the year as the last year for a season. Since Bell was traded in November 2009, which is the 2009/10 season, the year is listed as 2010. I will add a note about this.—Chris!c/t 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Can you remove the "width=80%" part from the table? It messes up the layout in my browser.
- Statistics should be as of the last day of the previous season. the way it is now, it requires constant updating.
- I agree, but this is almost impossible for me to change since the source used is constantly updated and I add the stats during the middle of the season.—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you used the latest media guide? Starting page 133, it gives you stats as of the last day of last season.--Cheetah (talk) 06:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The years in the "from" and "to" columns are confusing. It's better to use the two-year format(ex. 2005-06) or just link the years to the season it indicates(ex. 2005).
--Cheetah (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Good work. Awaiting an answer to Wizardman's question. Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one question. Might it be worth mentioning the 2004 NBA Expansion Draft that initially filled their roster? Staxringold talkcontribs 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find the use of defaulting to the end of the season for the purpose of the list confusing. Mainly, if someone doesn't check the footnotes, then they're thinking that the team started in 2005 and had no players in 2004. It doesn't have a good feel to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.—Chris!c/t 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks better. Ideally the first and last games would be an exact date, but that would be very difficult to find and modify, so I won't ask for that. For the purposes of whether or not to promote, this can be considered a support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.—Chris!c/t 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [19].
- Nominator(s): — Rod talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the parishes, supported by suitable references (using WebCite where the county council has removed the relevant documents) & with pictures in all cases where appropriately licensed images are available. It has received a peer review & the issues identified have been addressed. — Rod talk 20:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is a list of civil parishes in the ceremonial county of Somerset, England." Needs to be changed since FLs no longer start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.— Rod talk 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Am I a bad person if I want a map? :) --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you are not a bad person.. but if you want a map you can click on the "Map of all coordinates from Google" or "Map of all coordinates from Bing" (top right below the infobox) you can see them all plotted. I don't have the skills or software to create a map with all the parishes plotted myself.— Rod talk 21:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But no borders? ;) As I said, I'm a bad person. That works fine. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks really good to me, an excellent achievement! Harrias (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Quick comments –
|
Still see a few references with dashes in their dates (I noticed them in refs 8 and 13), but everything else is taken care of. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the rest of the dashes in the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Per Harrias above; I'm really impressed. Chrisieboy (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very good. Not much to complain:
- Could you wikilink "Bath and North East Somerset" in "The city of Bath is the largest centre of population in Bath and North East Somerset."? Initially I read: "Bath is the largest centre in Bath."
- Is there a comma missing in "All of North Somerset, the other unitary authority is covered by..."?
- More out of curiosity: Why do you make the tables 90% of the textwidth?
bamse (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks - I've added the wikilink & comma suggested. The width of tables was originally left unspecified but this meant they were different widths, because of different text string length. In response to comments I standarised them. I could put them up to 100% but unless you are using a very low screen resolution none of the text goes over one line (except where intended to) so I'm not sure if there is any advantage?— Rod talk 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Congratulations to the very good list. support.bamse (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [20].
- Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of a project to develop the Battle of the Nile and associated articles. This is a listing of the ships engaged, their commanders and the casualties each one suffered in the battle as best as can be determined by the sources. Please note that the ships are ordered by the position they took in the battle line and thus the tables are not intended to be sortable. Any comments and suggestions welcome. Jackyd101 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments: Very good list (and article).
bamse (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Looks good now and the sorting feature is not that important. Therefore Support.bamse (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanksyou very much - Happy New Year.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - nice work.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per bamse's comments: I don't think this necessarily needs to be sortable at all, and as you've pointed out, colspan's tend to throw it all out anyway. I hadn't noticed "Heavy" and "Light" and I do have a bit of an issue with that because it's not quantitative and I can't see what that means anywhere. I don't have a big problem with a single figure meaning overall casualties as long as you note it. You haven't referenced the casualties in the Orient, by the way... The Rambling Man (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments Looks good Jackyd. I've made a few prose adjustments, and I've put some comments below:
- I've tried a new first line: the old one seemed a bit long and contained a lot of info for one sentence, so I've tried breaking it into 2. I think it reads better this way, but I realise you might not agree!
- Much better, thankyou.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the suggestion that it might be an idea to highlight French vessels destroyed in the action. I understand your points above, but I think it'll make the list instantly clearer at first glance, whereas at the moment you really need to read to find the lost ships. Using the style applied on lists of VC winners might be an idea, and the key at the top could explain that highlighted vessels are the ones lost during the engagement, not later on. Although all the vessels were lost in different circumstances, the end result is the same (just like the death of VC winners).
- OK, I'll give it a go and see what it looks like.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the 3rd para of the lead - "The almost total destruction of the French fleet reversed the strategic situation in the Mediterranean, giving the Royal Navy control of the sea which it would not relinquish until 1815." This leaves me wanting more info - what happened in 1815? Was it Waterloo that lost the RN the Med? I wonder if a note might help, or if there's a appropriate blue link to an article or article's subsection?
- Nothing so exciting I'm afraid, 1815 was the year the war ended, thus ending the need for dominance. In fact the Royal Navy remained strong in the Med until 1945, but thats getting off topic somewhat. I'll rephrase the sentence.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the French table, Genereux is decribed as "Escaped with Villeneuve on 2 August". I don't know if there's a formality to describing the senior officer, but I'd have thought it would be more logical to say "Escaped with Guillaume Tell"
- Either works, I'll rephrase it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise it looks good, nice work. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much, replies above, improvements to follow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now done everything, including adding the colour coding. I'm still not convinced by that, it seems like a broad brush approach to something that is actually quite complex, but since there have been several requests for it I've added it in. Thanks very much for your comments and interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hehe, you might not like me saying that it looks good then! So good in fact that I Support promotion. Ranger Steve (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now done everything, including adding the colour coding. I'm still not convinced by that, it seems like a broad brush approach to something that is actually quite complex, but since there have been several requests for it I've added it in. Thanks very much for your comments and interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou very much, replies above, improvements to follow.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Intro reads rather long and involved given there's a full article on how the battle went. Perhaps it should concentrate more on where the ships came from to form the fleets? GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments.
The lead currently says that the French had 13 ships of the line and four frigates. However it says nothing about the number of British ships (although they are named in the table). It should say that there were 14 British ships of line and one sloop.- I will add this (although your numbers are not quite correct).--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four French ships were too badly damaged to join him and were beached by their crews, Villeneuve eventually escaped with just two ships of the line and two frigates. On 3 August the last two French ships in the bay were defeated, one surrendering and the other set on fire by its crew. These two sentences are confusing. They convey a wrong impression that the two ships that were defeated on 3 August were the same ships of line that had escaped on the previous days. I think the first sentences should clearly state that they escaped to Malta, while the second should clarify which ships were defeated.- I have clarified this in the text (although the escaping ships did not all go to Malta). Thanks for your interest and comments - do you have any other points to add?--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik_Zero 20:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support. Ruslik_Zero 05:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 17:31, 16 January 2010 [21].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I am getting familiar with the FL process and I got List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft passed FL, I feel comfortable that this list also meets all the criteria for FL. However, I do expect some comments on the number of red links so let me address that in the nomination. I feel that this article passes critera 5a because there is a minimal proportion of red links for articles that I feel are notable. I feel that some of these players may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia because while they were drafted to the NBA, many never played a game and would probably violate WP:ATHLETE. I also feel that this part of the criteria is flexible due to the fact that on several occassions, it was proposed it should be removed but no consenses was ever reached. I'm sure if the situation were reversed and someone was trying to add the criteria, no consensus would be reached on its addition and it would not be added.—NMajdan•talk 17:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
|---|
|
Comment
—Chris!c/t 18:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - Redlinks or not, it doesn't bother me. And the rule "a minimal proportion of red links" is really open to different interpretations. Anyway, I am comfortable supporting now. —Chris!c/t 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Happy to see that red links are no longer an issue, and am ready to take a closer look at the list as a whole.
|
Support – After many comments from myself and other editors, this meets FL standards. The table alignment really doesn't bother me at all, and I commented on the unlinked players below. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- "From 1967 until the ABA–NBA merger in 1976, the American Basketball Association (ABA) held it own draft." - How is this relevant to the article? --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
- You replied "Done" to that question. That doesn't answer my question. Laugh out loud. I think including the ABA Drafts could be possisle. No point in not. --[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was added to answer the "What's ABA?" question in the review above.—NMajdan•talk
- Could mention the first drafted Sooner from the NBA and WNBA Drafts in the lead.
- "# - Inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame" Remove, as the symbol is not used in any of the tables.
- Could mention who is currently active in their respective leagues.
--[[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment: In the NBA Draft you have Round/Pick. In the WNBA draft you have Round/Pick/Overall. Make the two consistent. Wizardman 18:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose
- The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
- I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
- The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
- It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
- Not that odd, just two plain old sentences. Perhaps for the sake of just getting on with this FLC, it'd be better to revert to "...while..."..... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you suggesting I remove the "also" from the second sentence? If so, then the sentence sounds very odd.—NMajdan•talk
- It may be easiest if you removed any kind of interjectory phrase, or replace "also" and "while" with just "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally had it structured this way, but another reviewer suggested I split it into two which is how it stands now.—NMajdan•talk
- The word "also" is used as a synomym of "same"; thus implying what I said. The word "while" is more precise IMO. Something like ...men had 42 players while women had 9...--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how the second sentence implies what you say at all. Seems very straight forward to me. Can you be more specific?—NMajdan•talk
Oklahoma had two players selected in both the latest NBA draft and latest WNBA draft. - Two players in total OR two players in each draft? Be specific....must be at least one year removed from the graduation of his high school class. - This is not applied to international players. Be more specific.- Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
- The lead should explain the draft process and by omitting the "international" part, it gives false explanation. You can add the "only Americans" part in the end.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, that rule doesn't apply to international players but this is a list about an American university's draftees, so the international rule doesn't apply. Now, it does belong in the main yearly NBA Draft article.—NMajdan•talk
Also, all five non-playoff teams that participate in the draft lottery pick in the order of the lottery outcome with the remainder of the league selecting in reverse order of their win–loss record. - where are the commas? or some other punctuation marks? It's just hard to read.- Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
- Only place I can read it as possibly useful is after "outcome". I think we're a bit comma-crazy sometimes. There's not a single rule of grammar I've come across which would mandate a comma between lottery and pick, but I'm a Brit so what would I know... ?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that a comma is needed there. Maybe someone else has an opinion on it.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd suggest after "lottery" before "pick".--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where would a comma go? The only place where one might go is after outcome but I don't think it is necessary.—NMajdan•talk
...have completed her intercollegiate... - her or their? we're talking about "players", right?Can the image captions "draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious"? per WP:CAPTION- Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables.
- I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
- You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
- Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they fail the first rule, you do. And it's not the rule, it's your interpretation of the rule. And last time I looked it was a guideline. You'll need to add several hundred FLs to FLRC if this is going to be your approach from now on. In extremis, you could argue that paragraphs should be the same length (internal consistency) or that sentences should be the same length (internal consistency). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I just browsed a random sample of current FLs, and I'd say at least 800 have a variation of alignments within them and many hundred have central alignment, not "one or two lists with centered text" as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list uses two styles (both left-aligned and centered text) in the table in the same page (i.e. internally), how is it extreme? Every part of the MoS should be followed, especially the very first part. Let's revisit those FLs if you think they fail the first "rule".--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your intepretation of internal consistency equalling all columns should be aligned the same is extreme. The list is consistent with itself. If you are sticking to this (and would oppose because of it), we may need to revisit many, many of our current FLs. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's section 1.1 of WP:MOS.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point me to that? We have had a number of tables in the past where this inconsistency has occurred, so it'd be useful to be able to point to the specific section of MOS which prohibits it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS mandates consistency; this list does not follow consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless the MOS mandates something specific, this is personal choice. As NMajdan says, there are many FLs with either center aligned or a mixture of left and center aligned text. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to hear from other editors on this change. I have several FLs that are like this so I don't see a problem.—NMajdan•talk
- You may find one or two lists with centered text, but the majority is left-aligned. Besides, you have both left-aligned and centered text in the table, you need to be consistent.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen many other articles have center-aligned text. Can you link to the MOS guideline on this?—NMajdan•talk
- The University of Oklahoma men's basketball team has had 42 players drafted in the National Basketball Association (NBA). The women's basketball team has also had nine players drafted in the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA). - These two sentences need to be reworded, the second sentence implies that men had 9 players drafted, which contradictory to the facts.
(→) Don't mock the MoS, please. I just went through around 20 FLs and didn't find any, but I'll take another look later. As for this page, it just needs its "notes" columns to be centered and that's it. I really didn't think this will be discussed as much.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Don't mock the MoS"! Funny... The reason this is being discussed so much is that it affects a huge number of existing FLs and a number of current FLCs. If you're going to oppose all lists based on this interpretation of MoS then it needs discussion. As for finding some examples 1, 2, 3 (note the Key table here), 4, 5, 6, 7, 8... I clicked on about 16 to find 8, hence my estimate of how many lists have your interpretation of "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, my #8 has text both left and centrally aligned. Look again. (Won isn't abbreviated). And shouldn't those em-dashes be left-aligned in the blank cells? Are you saying abbreviations can be centrally aligned while non-abbreviations can be left-aligned? And numerical text can be right-aligned? I think you need to clearly define the rules you're applying here so we can make an assessment on the many 100s of lists this clearly affects. Where does MOS say "numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format"? I think this is confusing. And I don't think it's a valid oppose. I think you can see that, say, aligned numbers both centrally and right (e.g. years centrally and physical values right [so they line up per 1,000]) makes a lot of sense, despite your interpretation of "internal consistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And just quickly heading back to the few examples of the many hundreds, #1 which was List of Washington Metro stations has left (code, station, opened) and central (jurisdiction) columns, all text, #2 has left-aligned text but the colspan text is centrally-aligned (is this an exception to the "internal consistency" rule?), #6 has a mix of abbreviations and non-abbreviations in the left-hand (centrally-aligned) column (are mixtures covered somewhere?) and #7 seems to centrally align references (which are, after all, numbers), while right-aligning capacity... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That rather misses the point. Just because one other FL happens to have your approved version of alignment, it doesn't mean this list has to be the same. One other interesting point is that the headings of a wikitable are all centrally-aligned, while the text under them can be left, middle or right aligned. The only reason I want you to explain your overall strategy using the above examples is so that we understand future oppositions based on "internal inconsistency". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. That list isn't even a featured list. Why would you suggest it as an example? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have much time to keep up with this discussion. I'll add the last comment. Scroll through all the players' names. After doing that, click on 2006 NBA Draft and scroll through those names. If you don't notice a difference, then just close this discussion and move on. If you do notice a difference, you'll know what to do.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the original issue was resolved. The comment was "Why are the player names and teams centered? The text should be left-aligned in the tables." The names and teams are still centred while the awards are left-aligned... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like the original issue was resolved. What more is left that needs discussing, with regard to alignment of tables? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am only talking about all text should have same style/format. By saying text, I mean a word, a phrase, or a sentence. Numbers and abbreviations can have their own style/format. In your #8 example, all columns that have text are let-aligned. The result column looks like it has abbr. Your #7 example has only one column with text and it's the "site name" column. Now, afer taking a second look, I see that numbers have inconsistent style(area and year). That's worrisome to me. As for the example #3, I see the first column has abbr. and the second column has text, it looks OK. --Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, now I'm really confused. List of Gaylactic Spectrum Award winners and nominees for best short fiction for instance (number 8 above), has a mixture of left (author, title) and centrally (year, result) aligned columns. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex (number 7) has left (site name), central (reason, grid reference, year) and right (Area) aligned columns. The key table in number 3 (List of Houston Rockets seasons) has a mixture of central and left aligned text columns. Isn't that the thing you're objecting to here, or have I misinterpreted your comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The #4 is the only one that really violates. #5 can easily be fixed, I don't see any problem with others. Keep in mind that numbers have their own style.--Cheetah (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "key" section mentions that † marks NBA or WNBA champions, but it also marks the ABA champion, Don Sidle. This confusion needs to be avoided.- Why are some names not linked? I believe they're professional athletes and are notable enough to have a page here on Wikipedia some day. Do you feel they're not notable or afraid of the red links?
- I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
- It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
- I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE, the standard for athletes' notability on Wikipedia, states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" are considered notable. If draftees never played in a game, they technically don't meet this standard, and have to meet a much tougher standard to be considered notable. Considering how popular college athletics are in the U.S., it strikes me as a hole in the system, but it is an accepted standard and should be respected as long as it is considered so. With that in mind, I see nothing wrong with not linking the players here. We can't complain about the amount of red links in lists and then disagree with someone who removes them when articles can't be created. Why tempt an editor to create an article that will likely be deleted anyway, barring multiple sources on the player that establish notability? The one area I can see your point on is the female players. If they played in the WNBA (not sure if that's the case), they should be linked since they are decidedly professional players. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once again, this is a new point out of the blue! We have hundreds of FLs with unlinked items, without note, because it is widely understood that unlinked terms fail notability criteria. Proving this is attempting to prove a negative. One was promoted only three days ago - List of members of the Council of Keble College, Oxford. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these players are in the same scope, right? They all went to Oklahoma and they all were drafted. So, why some are notable while others not? If all players were unlinked, then we wouldn't be discussing this.--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe so. Not linked inherently means not notable enough for an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There needs to be some explanation why those players are not linked at all.--Cheetah (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with NMajdan here. This a list of who was drafted, not who didn't go on to play in the NBA/WNBA. It's interesting if it can be clearly cited, but it'd be an exercise in trying to prove a negative and certainly is borderline within the scope. This is about those drafted into the NBA/WNBA, not necessarily if they went on to make appearances. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I think having to indicate which players actually played in the NBA is a bit beyond the scope of this list and hard to verify. I don't think it is needed.—NMajdan•talk
- It needs to be mentioned what players did not play a single game in the pro league. Some indicator along with color may be used for this.--Cheetah (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I covered this is my nomination intro.—NMajdan•talk
(→)These draftees have competed at the highest amateur level in basketball; therefore, they meet WP:ATHLETE. College basketball is the highest amateur basketball competition. In today's basketball world, Olympics and World Championships can't be considered amateur tourneys because professionals play there. Since they meet WP:ATHLETE, I believe they should be linked.--Cheetah (talk) 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) --Cheetah (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they meet ATHLETE, redlink them and then we can move on. If they don't, don't link them and then we can move on. Nothing more needs to be said. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You bring in a couple of nice points. College basketball wasn't as big of an event before 1980s as it is now. Just explain to me why Tim McCalister has an article while David Johnson and Darryl Kennedy are not even linked? Also why none of those women are linked? They were drafted after 2000, they should be notable enough.--Cheetah (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, keep in mind that the level of media exposure afforded to collegiate athletes has exploded in recent years. Its a lot easier for a lot of athletes to meet WP:ATHLETE since there is a lot more written about them these days. There's a lot of sports coverage given ESPN, local newspapers, websites and magazines dedicated to that particular school (I know Oklahoma has at least two magazines dedicated to Sooner athletics: Sooners Illustrated & Sooner Spectator). Before the 1980s and maybe even the 1990s, not nearly as much was written about collegiate athletes and thus it is harder for them to meet the BIO guidelines.—NMajdan•talk 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, at least with college football, I'm pretty sure it's an established fact that college football players (who are similarly situated athletes to college bball players in terms of the stature of their amateur status) are not inherently notable. See 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team#Roster for example, many of the players have no articles. Occasionally a player like Sam Bradford or Tim Tebow is notable enough through other coverage (Heisman race, for example), but for the most part not. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review. Obviously, I still have several questions regarding your suggestions, so I hope we can clear them up.—NMajdan•talk 15:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Another WP:ATH question. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it now got to the point where, instead of dissecting each individual's worthiness of a redlink, we should just redlink everyone in this list? NMajdan did a good job of trying to explain why he didn't take the easy option of just linking everyone, but it appears to have blown up in his face. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, I misread the article. I thought it said he played in the nba for four years, but he never played professionally. Nevermind then, his article as it stands does not establish notability. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you share with your evidence that states "McCalister had a 4 year professional career"?--Cheetah (talk) 20:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, per the notability issue, I have no problem with him keeping them delinked. The list still seems fine to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple, because McCalister currently has an article. It'd be pretty stupid to not link it when the article exists. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see a difference between McCalister and Kennedy, for example. Both were drafted in 1987 and none of them played in NBA...yet one is linked while the other is not. Why?--Cheetah (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with cheetah's athlete interpretation. If they didn't play professionally, then just keep them unlinked as they are now. Just "being drafted after 2000" doesn't make someone notable. McCalister had a 4 year professional career, while the other two did not play professionally based on what i could find, hence no link. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was asked to comment on the alignments so I'll do that quickly: I'm fine with the way they are now, the center alignments look fine. If consensus lies elsewhere in the end then that's also fine, I really don't consider it much of an issue. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, the center alignment is fine.—Chris!c/t 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Because of the length and complexity of this FLC, I am writing my closing rationale for this on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [22].
- Nominator(s): Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another list of cricket centuries, primarily modelled on that of Ricky Ponting. The first one for an English player. Would appreciate any comments, criticisms and improvements. Harrias (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport Any remaining tweaks will undoubtedly be picked up. SGGH ping! 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- "the only occasion on which he has made a double century" could be "his only double century"
- Done: changed as suggested.
- "His 14 Test centuries have been scored at 11 grounds, with nine of the centuries being scored in England and the five remaining centuries all scored at different grounds. He has made a century in both innings of a Test match on one occasion, against the West Indies in 2004 at Edgbaston. He has been dismissed twice after scoring 90 but failing to go on to score a century, against India in 2001 and Australia in 2005.[5]" Overuse of "century" particularly at the beginning, and the second use of "ground" could be changed to "venue".
- Done: changed as suggested.
- "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries are the most scored by an English cricketer, four more than the next, Graham Gooch"... "the next..." what? "The next" would fit in better I feel if the sentence had been "Trescothick's 12 ODI centuries is the highest tally" but would be better to remove the "next" part.
- Not changed yet, I have similar issues when writing it, but I'm unsure as to whether it would make sense if it isn't clarified that Gooch has the next most centuries. Just couldn't work out suitable wording.
- Done: changed in rewrite.
- Not changed yet, I have similar issues when writing it, but I'm unsure as to whether it would make sense if it isn't clarified that Gooch has the next most centuries. Just couldn't work out suitable wording.
- the lead overall is slightly bullet-point-esque.
- Again, not changed yet, I appreciate your point here and will have a look at it properly to work through, I'm not always the most fluid writer! Any help here would be appreciated.
- Done: changed in rewrite (hopefully).
- Again, not changed yet, I appreciate your point here and will have a look at it properly to work through, I'm not always the most fluid writer! Any help here would be appreciated.
- A few other prose issues and grammar.
- As with the previous point really.
- Done: changed in rewrite.
- As with the previous point really.
- "Test" column is a bit misleading IMO without "th" or "st" to illustrate you mean which Test in the series. Though I suspect you have done this because it is what Ponting's list does.
- I'm not sure how much clearer having 'th' and 'st' would make it personally? Would invite other opinions on this.
- Done: fixed with Chamal's suggestion (x/x), see below. Harrias (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how much clearer having 'th' and 'st' would make it personally? Would invite other opinions on this.
- Place the cricket archive link in the external links
- Done: changed as suggested.
- Is the cricket records box needed? I've always been inclined to include only nav-boxes in the articles they have in them.
- All the other lists of this type have this box. That doesn't make it right, but for consistency until a discussion/concensus is made, I'll leave it there.
- "the only occasion on which he has made a double century" could be "his only double century"
Good stuff, I'll check back with the FLC has proceeded further. SGGH ping! 11:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, I've fixed those that I'm immediately able to, and left a few other to think and mull over! Harrias (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support: Good enough for me. I was actually talking about MoM awards in the table same as the captained and not out matches (like here), but as I said that's not a big deal and I'm ok with it either way. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You should not have two keys that say the exact same things. Please remove the second one, and also check that other century FLs are not also repetitive. Reywas92Talk 17:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks great. Reywas92Talk 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Merged the two keys and separated from the individual sections. Harrias (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest having a ==Centuries== with the key in bold type and then ===List of ODI/Test centuries=== or something similar? The current level 1 headings for Key, followed by another level 1 for ODI and another for Test looks a bit blocky and and divisive. SGGH ping! 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: And I agree, it looks better like this. Harrias (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Might I suggest having a ==Centuries== with the key in bold type and then ===List of ODI/Test centuries=== or something similar? The current level 1 headings for Key, followed by another level 1 for ODI and another for Test looks a bit blocky and and divisive. SGGH ping! 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – FL standards are met after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [24].
- Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this embodies the videography of American recording artist Madonna completely and is a complete list of her releases, including their notability and controversies surrounding it. --Legolas (talk2me) 07:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support - The information seems complete and sources look good.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Festive comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – I just took a momentary glance and noticed that the lead is the longest I can remember seeing in an article, let alone a list. To be honest, it's overwhelming in its length to me. I feel that it would be better to have the lead act as more of a summary, and have the details be included in their own section, where the size wouldn't matter as much.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I moved much of the commentary to appropriate sections. Take a look, lead seems appropriate length now. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see why the one-line plot summary against each each video is required. As an analogy, in a Wikipedia discography you don't see descriptions of the album/single's music do you? I think this plot info can be cut from the lead as well, bring down its size as Giants2008 requested. In fact, if you consider just the tables here, I don't see why can't be merged into the Madonna's discography, as is standard for all other artists.—indopug (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you check whether the blockquote in the lead has been transcribed properly?—indopug (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are mistaken. There is no Madonna's discography. Her catalogue is so huge that long back it was decided that albums, singles, films, videos will be separated. And a one-line plot summary is definitely not WP:UNDUE is it? Plot info has been considerably cut from the lead and merged into those one liners. There is no concrete rule for how a discography should be constructed and WP:WAX seems invalid in this case as everything is separate here. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Legolas on this one; the catalogue is so vast that it does require to be split into three. The same is done for Michael Jackson (videography, album discography and singles discography). Pyrrhus16 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are mistaken. There is no Madonna's discography. Her catalogue is so huge that long back it was decided that albums, singles, films, videos will be separated. And a one-line plot summary is definitely not WP:UNDUE is it? Plot info has been considerably cut from the lead and merged into those one liners. There is no concrete rule for how a discography should be constructed and WP:WAX seems invalid in this case as everything is separate here. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Some comments:
INTRO SECTION
MUSIC VIDEOS SECTION
|
Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment. I was asked to comment here because I had brought Michael Jackson videography to FL status fairly recently, and it is the only videography currently at that status. While Madonna's and Jackson's videography articles differ a bit in structure, there is no guideline for how these lists should be constructed. As long as the list has the main details that I think should be required (music videos, home media, certifications of home media), then structuring can be varied to the main editor's preferences. Jackson has his filmography integrated into his videography article, but seeing as Madonna has starred in more movies, hers should not be added to this and, in my opinion, should remain a standalone article as well (Madonna filmography). Anyway, I have no problems with this videography - it looks nice and appears to be comprehensive. Well done. Pyrrhus16 16:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Large comprehensive list, without any flaws I can find. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:50, 12 January 2010 [25].
- Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is now complete and ready to match the existing Scottish island FLs such as List of Outer Hebrides. Ben MacDui 16:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Many thanks for your comments. I will attend to them asap, although you have caught me at a busy moment and it may be Saturday before I get the time to look at them all. Ben MacDui 21:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Typically we avoid bold links.
- Especially as you link Inner Hebrides in the next para as well.
- The lead is fixed I think.
- There are emboldened links in the "Smaller islets and skerries" section too. This isn't generally necessary in the other lists as they are all archipelagos distant from the shore so the "main island" the skerries surround is always linked higher up. Here the links are useful pointers to the general area. It would be a pity to unlink them and I'm tempted to suggest that this is a case of IAR, but I am open to suggestions.
- Well, I suggest we see what the rest of the community think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the emboldened group names are appropriately linked. An alternative would be to repeat the group name and link that - would probably look worse. Finavon (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the bold is fine as well. We could very loosely consider it used for a "definition list" function, as per MOS:BOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the emboldened group names are appropriately linked. An alternative would be to repeat the group name and link that - would probably look worse. Finavon (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I suggest we see what the rest of the community think about it... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comments by Bamse
Looks very good. Just a couple of comments/questions:
bamse (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some further replies: Ben MacDui 12:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All comments have been addressed.bamse (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Reywas92 Support
- The years in the Last inhabited column should not be linked.
- Done
- Notes 2 and 6 could be merged.
- Done
Very nice overall. Reywas92Talk 03:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thanks for your comments. Ben MacDui 13:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Before I can support I have a couple of comments below. Other than that the alt text looks good and the article seems well written with a good lead and clean and organized tables. I checked it through AWB and there was nothing significant there.
- There is 1 disambiguous page for Lismore
- Took me a while to find it hiding on a template. Now fixed.
- many of the references seem to lack proper formatting--
- Could you be more specific?
Kumioko (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think that the last section of the lead that appears to be notes in determining what is defined as an island be removed from the lead and linked as a note. I think this info detracts from the content of the article itself..but thats just my opinion.
- Done
Other than that it looks good.--Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my comment to support, looks good to me know. --Kumioko (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments –
In the two tables, items that have Gaelic names with Gaelic as the first letter sort following all names beginning with a regular letter in the Gaelic names column. Is this the intention?
- It was not and thanks for spotting this. Now Fixed.
In the second table, Eilean Tigh's area is not sorting properly.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ben MacDui 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
Looks very nice, just a few minor things:
"The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides and the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south." - this is a bit of a run-on sentence; might I suggest instead The islands of Scotland's west coast are known collectively as the Hebrides; the Inner Hebrides are separated from the Outer Hebrides by The Minch to the north and the Sea of the Hebrides to the south. This would break things up a bit by inserting a verbal/mental pause."In the past the Hebrides as a whole" - a comma after "past" would not be amiss."Scottish Gaelic speaking" is a single adjective, so I believe the correct punctuation would be Scottish Gaelic-speakingJura and Gigha overlinked in the lead.
Otherwise very well done. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments. All done. Ben MacDui 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the promotion of this list, as it meets the featured list criteria. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments. All done. Ben MacDui 19:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [26].
- Nominator(s): bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list was a recent featured list candidate. The nomination failed due to a lack of reviewers. All comments of the previous nomination have been addressed and the list has virtually not changed since then. I nominate it again because I think that it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Hoping for more reviewers this time. bamse (talk) 09:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very informative and well written list. My only concern is the following sentence: All of these are counted double in this table. All of these five paintings are mentioned just one time in the table. Ruslik_Zero 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and edits. Not sure if I understand the problem. There are five National Treasures which date to more than one period (In fact all of these five date to two periods.) In the "Age/National Treasures" table the sum in the "National Treasure" column is 163 which is equal to 153 (single period National Treasures) plus five (two-period National Treasures) which are counted double. So 153 + 2*5=163. I added the following sentence to the footnote to clarify: "For instance, the National Treasure "Portraits of Seven Shingon Patriarchs" appears twice in this table: under "Tang Dynasty" and under "Heian period"." bamse (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport – On a second look at this list, the only problem I saw was the clarification tag, and steps have been taken to address this. This is normally where I would support the list's promotion, but I am a temporary delegate and must abstain as long as there's a possibility that I could close this. I might be back to my regular reiewer role before this FLC ends; if I am, I intend to offer support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]- And now I have. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Excellent effort. I don't have any problems here. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from WFCforLife I didn't review this first time around because it's really not my area of expertise, but I'm sad to see that this didn't get passed. I may live to regret this, but a note to the directors. If an article fails its first FLC purely because of lack of interest (i.e. the director feels it could have passed with a couple of reviews, but was obliged not to promote), I'll review anything the second time if made aware of the second nom.
| Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
:*"The 158 entries in the list consist of the following: 90 are hanging scrolls; 38 are hand scrolls or emakimono; 20 are byōbu folding screens or paintings on sliding doors (fusuma); and three are albums." This does not tally to 158.
I can't fault the table itself, that's absolutely wonderful. Hope these help for now, WFCforLife (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
I'm happy with the lead, it's very well-written.
Not speaking Japanese, it's difficult for me to express opinions on most of the references. The best quality sources are going to be Japanese, and therefore we should use them. What I would ask is that at least one of the |publisher= or |author= fields is filled in for each reference, so that a non-speaker can ascertain where the information is coming from. There are a few references with a Japanese title, followed by (in Japanese) and retrieved on yyyy-mm-dd, which isn't really enough information. WFCforLife (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that as soon as I am back to a computer with Japanese fonts; likely either today or tomorrow.bamse (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added publisher or author information to all references. Also started to add translations of reference titles with "trans_title" if the title is in Japanese. With almost 150 references it will take a day or two until I am done with it. bamse (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. All references have publisher or author information and all foreign language reference titles are translated.bamse (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added publisher or author information to all references. Also started to add translations of reference titles with "trans_title" if the title is in Japanese. With almost 150 references it will take a day or two until I am done with it. bamse (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic work! Those refs all look credible, so I'm very happy to support. WFCforLife (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May sound patronising, but I'm glad to see this back at FLC, and doubly glad that bamse hasn't been discouraged by the current lull in reviews. And moreover, thanks to those of you who have shown an interest, made a review, come to a decision. Happy new year! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Great work so far...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the red links bother me, the artists, museums and schools hopefully can be eventually filled in...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did previously say this in my capped comments, but I feel it worthy of repetition. In my opinion the redlinks are fine, as they all link to things that I believe meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. I would be very much opposed to encouraging someone to create stubs for the sake of it. There's no rush. WFCforLife (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WFCforLife, there's no harm in having red links. Ideally, they would all be blue, but also ideally they'd all be Featured Articles as well. We're not judging the content (or existence) of other articles, just this list. I'm sure they'll get filled in eventually. Nev1 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support
The lead image could do with being bigger; currently, the detail is unclear. Try 300px.- I used "upright=1.4". If I replace it with "300px", for my screen the picture actually shrinks. So I made it bigger with "upright=1.6". Big enough?
- That's better. My preferences for image size are set to default so it appears as it does for unregistered editors. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I used "upright=1.4". If I replace it with "300px", for my screen the picture actually shrinks. So I made it bigger with "upright=1.6". Big enough?
The lead is unusual. Why does it start with religious art, rather than paintings as a whole. Unless religious paintings are the first known or surviving examples of paintings?- As far as I know, there are no surviving Japanese paintings (apart from maybe some primitive art) from before the introduction of Buddhism (mid 6th century). The oldest paintings in the list and the oldest surviving paintings are religious (Buddhist). Basically the intro traverses the table by age starting with the oldest paintings (click on the arrow next to "Date" to have it sorted this way). I don't think it is necessary to explain what a painting is.
- It's certainly unnecessary to explain what a painting is. I think it would be worth explaining what you've just said about survival in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: "They comprise the oldest extant non-primitive paintings in Japan." to the lead.
- It's certainly unnecessary to explain what a painting is. I think it would be worth explaining what you've just said about survival in the lead. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, there are no surviving Japanese paintings (apart from maybe some primitive art) from before the introduction of Buddhism (mid 6th century). The oldest paintings in the list and the oldest surviving paintings are religious (Buddhist). Basically the intro traverses the table by age starting with the oldest paintings (click on the arrow next to "Date" to have it sorted this way). I don't think it is necessary to explain what a painting is.
When talking about the different kingdoms and different styles, it would be useful for anyone not familiar with Chinese history to be given date ranges. It's done in some cases, but perhaps not often enough.- I'll add date ranges.
- Done.
- I'll add date ranges.
The lead is a little woolly, and I'm left wondering what the scope of the article is. Is it religious paintings from the 6th century onwards? If so, why is the article's title not more specific? There's no preamble ("There are x number of national treasures that are paintings; they cover such and such a date range. Although Japanese art stretches back to this period, the earliest natural treasure dates from a different time because... etc) and the reader is plunged straight into a summary of religious art, without any direct connection being drawn between art and national treasures.- The scope is as the title says, National Treasure paintings. Mainly the older paintings are religious. Since the intro is written chronologically, it starts with religious paintings. However the intro also clearly mentions other types of paintings that are contained in the list: "illustrated novels", "historical" topics, landscape paintings,... At least at the sentence: "The paintings listed show Buddhist themes, landscapes, portraits and court scenes." it should be clear that there are not only religious paintings in the list. Would it be OK to use the term "National Treasure" in a preamble before its definition (=last paragraph of the intro)? Or do you mean to move the last paragraph up to the top?
- I think moving the last paragraph of the lead would help with the flow. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved it up to the start.
- I think moving the last paragraph of the lead would help with the flow. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope is as the title says, National Treasure paintings. Mainly the older paintings are religious. Since the intro is written chronologically, it starts with religious paintings. However the intro also clearly mentions other types of paintings that are contained in the list: "illustrated novels", "historical" topics, landscape paintings,... At least at the sentence: "The paintings listed show Buddhist themes, landscapes, portraits and court scenes." it should be clear that there are not only religious paintings in the list. Would it be OK to use the term "National Treasure" in a preamble before its definition (=last paragraph of the intro)? Or do you mean to move the last paragraph up to the top?
Can you find a source which discusses the breakdown of the paintings? You already have a table with the periods, but for an explanation (perhaps a particular period was known for its quality) a source would need to be found.- I don't have a source, and think it would be impossible to find a reliable source for it as it means interpreting the decisions of the Agency for Cultural Affairs which designates the National Treasures. The criteria are basically a very high "historical or artistic value", but in the end it is up to a group of people to decide which paintings qualify. So it is a very subjective list and one could argue that other existing paintings could equally qualify to be a National Treasure. In fact the number of National Treasures is slowly increasing while the number of old paintings is not. Also, different periods were characterised by very different genres of paintings. How do you compare a painting of the "Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy" with a landscape in ink by Shūbun for instance? As an observation one can note that the number of national treasures in a period roughly scales with the length of that period.
- Unfortunately this leaves the uneven period distribution of National Treasures unexplain (ie: the two peaks in the Heian and Kamakura periods). It's so infuriating when you know what you want a source to say but no one's written it down yet so it can't go into the article because of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Since there's nothing that can realistically be done about it, I've struck this issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed the peaks are not completely explained by the long times (400 years for Heian and 150 years for Kamakura period). I think there are several factors that could explain this distribution: (i) a preference for old items, which means Nara, Heian and Kamakura period; (ii) Nara period: limited number of genres (only religious, Chinese style) and not many surviving paintings, therefore low number of National Treasures in Nara period (iii) emerging new styles in Heian and Kamakura period and National Treasures designating early examples of new styles. As I said, these are my personal opinions and non-quotable. Maybe I should write a book on the topic to reference it!? ;-)
- Unfortunately this leaves the uneven period distribution of National Treasures unexplain (ie: the two peaks in the Heian and Kamakura periods). It's so infuriating when you know what you want a source to say but no one's written it down yet so it can't go into the article because of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Since there's nothing that can realistically be done about it, I've struck this issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a source, and think it would be impossible to find a reliable source for it as it means interpreting the decisions of the Agency for Cultural Affairs which designates the National Treasures. The criteria are basically a very high "historical or artistic value", but in the end it is up to a group of people to decide which paintings qualify. So it is a very subjective list and one could argue that other existing paintings could equally qualify to be a National Treasure. In fact the number of National Treasures is slowly increasing while the number of old paintings is not. Also, different periods were characterised by very different genres of paintings. How do you compare a painting of the "Eleven-faced Goddess of Mercy" with a landscape in ink by Shūbun for instance? As an observation one can note that the number of national treasures in a period roughly scales with the length of that period.
On a similar note, the break down of the subjects would be interesting. Do sources comment on whether there is a high number of religious paintings?- Same problem as in the previous item. I am not aware of any sources, and don't think it is reasonable to discuss a subjective list too much. Any discussion of the numbers (number of items of a certain type, a certain age, a certain location,...) would mean discussing the selection process of the committee (which is not public).
- Struck per above. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same problem as in the previous item. I am not aware of any sources, and don't think it is reasonable to discuss a subjective list too much. Any discussion of the numbers (number of items of a certain type, a certain age, a certain location,...) would mean discussing the selection process of the committee (which is not public).
Who were these paintings commissioned by, what section of society did they belong to? Are these objects of the elite, or do the National Treasures include objects by lesser artists say?- It is somewhat different for different periods, but there is quite some info on that in the lead: "artists are unknown", "Zen monasteries", "were commissioned to adorn the castles and palaces of the military rulers", "artists from the Kanō school", "Rimpa school", "The Kanō school, patronized by the ruling class, was the most influential school of the period and, with 300 years of dominance, endured for the longest period in the history of Japanese painting", "Yuan Dynasty scholar-amateur painters", "Nanga", not to mention the many artists mentioned specifically by name. Do you really think, that more information on the artists and the commissioners is necessary?
- I phrased the original point poorly. It's not about who painted the pictures, but about who they were for. Were paintings exclusively owned by the social elite, or did lower classes have paintings? Were they status symbols or did they have other meaning? A general book on Japanese art might provide something. However, if you think that this is too involved for a list (the lead is already well developed), I'm prepared to strike the issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding, all these paintings were for either temples or the social elite (warriors). Lower classes had ukiyo-e at some point but those are not National Treasures. Not sure what you mean by "other meaning". Some of the religious paintings and mandalas probably had (and still have) a religious meaning. Also most of the paintings are quite pretty, so I can well imagine a daimyo enjoying the view of a painting. Since the castles and palaces are already mentioned in the intro, I could make more clear that paintings were also produced at and for temples. Time to go to sleep for me, so I'd do it tomorrow if you think that it's necessary.
- I think it would be useful to add that they were also produced for temples, but I'll leave it to your discretion. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added: "As with most of the early Japanese paintings, these works were created for Buddhist temples."
- I think it would be useful to add that they were also produced for temples, but I'll leave it to your discretion. Nev1 (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding, all these paintings were for either temples or the social elite (warriors). Lower classes had ukiyo-e at some point but those are not National Treasures. Not sure what you mean by "other meaning". Some of the religious paintings and mandalas probably had (and still have) a religious meaning. Also most of the paintings are quite pretty, so I can well imagine a daimyo enjoying the view of a painting. Since the castles and palaces are already mentioned in the intro, I could make more clear that paintings were also produced at and for temples. Time to go to sleep for me, so I'd do it tomorrow if you think that it's necessary.
- I phrased the original point poorly. It's not about who painted the pictures, but about who they were for. Were paintings exclusively owned by the social elite, or did lower classes have paintings? Were they status symbols or did they have other meaning? A general book on Japanese art might provide something. However, if you think that this is too involved for a list (the lead is already well developed), I'm prepared to strike the issue. Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is somewhat different for different periods, but there is quite some info on that in the lead: "artists are unknown", "Zen monasteries", "were commissioned to adorn the castles and palaces of the military rulers", "artists from the Kanō school", "Rimpa school", "The Kanō school, patronized by the ruling class, was the most influential school of the period and, with 300 years of dominance, endured for the longest period in the history of Japanese painting", "Yuan Dynasty scholar-amateur painters", "Nanga", not to mention the many artists mentioned specifically by name. Do you really think, that more information on the artists and the commissioners is necessary?
Does being a National Treasure afford the painting any special protection? For example, are there restrictions on sale?- There is some info in the National Treasures of Japan article, but I'll add a little to the intro.
- I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning.
- I added: "As such, they are restricted in transfer and may not be exported. Owners are required to announce any changes to the National Treasures such as damage or loss and need to obtain a permit for changes in location, transfer of ownership or intended repairs." There are more things that could be added: National Treasures need to be displayed in public for a certain period of time. Owners can receive financial compensation, tax reductions and advise/guidance. However for the purpose of the lead, I think these two sentences suffice. All the details are in National_Treasures_of_Japan#Preservation_and_utilization_measures.
- Agreed. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added: "As such, they are restricted in transfer and may not be exported. Owners are required to announce any changes to the National Treasures such as damage or loss and need to obtain a permit for changes in location, transfer of ownership or intended repairs." There are more things that could be added: National Treasures need to be displayed in public for a certain period of time. Owners can receive financial compensation, tax reductions and advise/guidance. However for the purpose of the lead, I think these two sentences suffice. All the details are in National_Treasures_of_Japan#Preservation_and_utilization_measures.
- I'll do it first thing tomorrow morning.
- There is some info in the National Treasures of Japan article, but I'll add a little to the intro.
The first entry in the main table of paintings gives "Heian period" as a date; this needs the century or a date range with it. This happens a handful of times, but they need to be sorted.- If there is no date, it means that no date (not even a century) is known. The sorting is arranged (with hidden sortkeys) as mentioned in the "Usage" section by the start year of the period. So sorting works fine even if there is no date visible. I could add the whole year ranges (for instance "794 to 1185" for the Heian period) if you think it is necessary.
- Thinking about this more, I don't think it's so important. You give a fair reason, and the reader can quickly follow a link if they want dates (although bear in mind that the reader might not come back...) Nev1 (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is no date, it means that no date (not even a century) is known. The sorting is arranged (with hidden sortkeys) as mentioned in the "Usage" section by the start year of the period. So sorting works fine even if there is no date visible. I could add the whole year ranges (for instance "794 to 1185" for the Heian period) if you think it is necessary.
It's a good list, but more information needs to be provided before I can support it. Of course, in some cases it may not be available, but it is worth investigating. I'm impressed by what I see, and a lot of effort has been put in; the alt text must have been particularly time consuming. I hope that with a bit more, I will be able to support. Nev1 (talk) 04:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback. I agree with some of your points raised and expressed my view on the others. I'd appreciate if you could respond to the latter (the points I don't really agree with), before I start modifying most of the list. bamse (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I addressed the one and a half outstanding issues.bamse (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to support, nicely done. Nev1 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the toolbox; there is one dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. bamse (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [27].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I plan on creating this series of lists soon (for the Wikicup) and want to get the style down pat to make the process easier. This is built in the style of List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks, a featured list. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Otherwise well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
"played in the 1986 World Series for the Mets' 1986 championship team." No need to repeat 1986 like this. Perhaps try "second championship team"?
Major issue: most of the yearly Baseball-Reference links are redirecting to a page listing the number one overall picks. The 1965 link has a slightly different address than the rest, and is the only one that goes to the correct place for me.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll fix that shortly, they changed around the precise coding for the address to get to the right page. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There, that should be all done. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Wrestlinglover
- Will begin tomorrow after I finish the GA review I currently have to do.--WillC 10:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know alot about Baseball anymore since I haven't been apart of a team for 5 years and haven't watched in years either, but as far as I can tell this article is fine. Only problem I found was ref 12 is broken. I Support this list's nomination.--WillC 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and note, fixed that! Staxringold talkcontribs 00:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments as promised from Mm40 (talk)
|
I'll support once these issues are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done, the captions are much better. Good luck in the WikiCup! Mm40 (talk) 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Now that I'm not a temp director anymore, I can now offer more than strikes to my comments. I only had a couple of comments to begin with (resolved long ago), and I think the criteria are met here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [28].
- Nominator(s): BLUEDOGTN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is up to the standards the two FL are in this topic List of US Open Men's Singles champions and List of Wimbledon Gentlemen's Singles champions, which I think this is equal to them, and that is why I am nominating this to get to FL status. BLUEDOGTN 03:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Note [c] - put the references in numerical order.
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Now that my stint as a temp director is over, I can now support lists I gave full reviews to, including this one. It meets FL standards, so there's no reason for me not to. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Reywas92Talk 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
Great list overall. Reywas92Talk 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Reywas92Talk 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great, as like the other two tennis lists! Support. oncamera(t) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Just the French Open left to conquer now. A great list Spiderone 10:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [29].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria. I made similar lists for Big Brother, Project Runway and Dancing with the Stars, so I feel I know most of the issues that need to be addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
Overall, a very good list.—NMajdan•talk 17:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – Should Spring in "Spring 2010" be de-capitalized? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to MOS, season are lowercase "in almost all instances". Furthermore, "When personified, season names may function as proper nouns, and they should then be capitalized: I think Spring is showing her colors; Old Man Winter." I
will go ahead andlowercased Spring, and keep in mind the new season will start soon so "spring" will be removed regardless. --Another Believer (Talk) 08:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- Donald Trump's "apprentice" → Donald Trump's apprentice
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- winner donating their → winners donating their or winner donating his or her
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the highlighting of the winners is unnecessary because their Finish is always 1st.
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With only one person appearing twice, I don't think highlighting of her name is necessary.
- Just thought I would point out that it was preferred over at List of Project Runway contestants. If you would still like the coloring removed, I'd be happy to. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary for that list either; it's also redundant because it's listed in the lead. The previous point about winners and runners up also applies to that list.
- Done. Removed coloring for Omarosa. I will not worry about the Project Runway list since that went through its own FL nomination process. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's necessary for that list either; it's also redundant because it's listed in the lead. The previous point about winners and runners up also applies to that list.
- Notes III and IV should be combined because they say the same thing.
- Not sure how to combine these. I tried, but was unable to. Also, I didn't know if (given the different sorting features) users might find it confusing which candidates were fired at the same time. Note III and Note IV both tell you specifically which candidates were fired at the same time. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. Perhaps you could add something else to the notes so they aren't identical. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. If you prefer different wording, just let me know! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. Perhaps you could add something else to the notes so they aren't identical. Reywas92Talk 01:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job overall! Reywas92Talk 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Although I would definitely say the winners should be marked by a color of some kind. I realize the column says they are the winner, but that deserves an additional identifier. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:25, 9 January 2010 [30].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's of a comparable standard to existing featured discogs, and I think it would be nice to see one from the world of folk music. There's probably loads of things still wrong with it, but if you point 'em out, I'll fix 'em if I can :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS Before it is asked, I have looked hard and can find no evidence that she has charted anywhere except in the UK. Allmusic says that one of her albums charted on a minor Billboard chart, but this is not supported by Billboard themselves, who state "This album has never charted" against all her albums on their website. If people feel that the Allmusic info should be included anyway, I'll be happy to add it in, I'm not "up" on how accurate the info on Billboard's own site may or may not be..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt128 let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now included -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am aware, Allmusic copies the chart information directly from Billboard, so you should include it. Dt128 let's talk 16:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Now. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
:*The All-Music cite for the sentence "In 1997 Rusby released her first solo album, Hourglass, and also joined the all-female folk group The Poozies, with whom she recorded one EP and one full-length album." cites the album and mentions The Poozies, but does not say when she joined.
|
- All addressed. Precise release dates for the EPs don't seem to be recorded anywhere so I've just had to reiterate the year. The WebCite thing didn't work. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad, seems like a cool tool. Never used it myself. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Drewcifer |
|---|
Comments Looks good. Here's a few suggestions/comments:
That's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support Sorry for the delay on this. I made one little edit myself to the sub-header thing; feel free to revert if you like. Also, hopefully you can figure out what that last unknown track contribution is, but I'll won't hold it against you for now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. It looks like a staggeringly obscure album, I think the only way to find out would be to buy it. Maybe if I see it really cheap on Amazon marketplace ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Just a few comments:
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:22, 5 January 2010 [31].
- Nominator(s): -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. The list provides a comprehensive and complete history of the results of the Montserrat national football team. Look forward to all of your comments, thanks in advance for your time. -- BigDom 11:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the key section should come before the actual list and should be in table form. "In the "Score" column, Monserrat's score is shown first." should be a footnote—Chris!c/t 19:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have put the key first and used a footnote, but from previous experience at FL I'm afraid I don't agree about having the key in table format so I've not done that. -- BigDom 12:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many FLs have the key in table format in case you didn't notice. But I guess that is just personal preference, so feel free to leave that alone.—Chris!c/t 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant in my own experience here, I haven't had to put any keys in a table format. Like you say, it's just personal preference so I may as well leave it as it is. -- BigDom 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I support—Chris!c/t 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant in my own experience here, I haven't had to put any keys in a table format. Like you say, it's just personal preference so I may as well leave it as it is. -- BigDom 23:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many FLs have the key in table format in case you didn't notice. But I guess that is just personal preference, so feel free to leave that alone.—Chris!c/t 18:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - nice to see a niche list here!
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
CommentsSupport
- next seven matches, before → next seven matches before
- What does becoming a FIFA member have to do with the volcano?
- The friendly match, between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world, ended → The friendly match between the two lowest-ranked teams in the world ended
- Is is necessary to say "As a full FIFA member", or can it just say "FIFA"? Was it only a partial member before?
- I think record tables tend to be WLD rather than WDL.
- The nominator is from the UK, and in the UK (and in fact pretty much everywhere outside the USA) sports tables are always shown in the WDL format -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've always seen tables as WDL so I guess this one's just personal preference -- BigDom
- Not wishing to pile-on, but yes, WDL is conventional in the UK and even in US publications about European football like Serie A. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I've always seen tables as WDL so I guess this one's just personal preference -- BigDom
- The nominator is from the UK, and in the UK (and in fact pretty much everywhere outside the USA) sports tables are always shown in the WDL format -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes A, B, C, D, and E are redundant to the lead or unnecessary because they can easily be inferred from the table.
Nice list overall. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tips, I have addressed them all now. -- BigDom 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- Spell out CONCACAF and FIFA.
- No need for duplicate World Cup links in the lead.
- but were beaten 1–6 on aggregate by Dominican Republic in the First Qualifying Round." Add "the" before Dominican Republic.
- "becoming worst-ranked side in the world." Add "the" before "worst"?
- In Footnote A, the team's name is misspelled.
- Again, spell out abbraviated reference publishers (RSSSF and FIFA). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers for the comments, all resolved now. -- BigDom 10:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:22, 5 January 2010 [32].
- Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Mary Pickford ranks as one of the most important and influencial pioneers of cinema, and therefore warrants an outstanding filmography. I have arranged the list in a structure simular to the Charlie Chaplin filmography, which is now a featured list.Jimknut (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support One thing, can we use the {{harvnb}} template for the book citaions? That way it is easy to link for a reader to a particular book. Otherwise a very comprehensive and informative list. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{harvnb}} added where appropriate. Jimknut (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Based on the same layout, style, etc as the Chaplin one, this is another fine workover. Excellent stuff! Lugnuts (talk) 09:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Quick comments –
|
- Support. I don't normally support without nit-picking, but the simple fact is that I couldn't find any nits. This is well written, comprehensive, well cited, there's no need for a sort function, and I cannot see any MoS faults. Nicely compliments Mary Pickford, which was a fascinating read. WFCforLife (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:17, 2 January 2010 [33].
- Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A change from my normal Guitar Hero soundtrack lists, the soundtrack for DJ Hero is quite different from the other games due to being mixes of two songs. For as much as I could do so, I stuck to the usual pattern the other GH songlists are in, though year of song release has been dropped (as technically, this would require 3 years to each row: song 1 and 2, and the mix year, and this is made difficult due to the number of mixes and remixes of the original songs that are present). Anything to help make this better, if possible, would be appreciated, but otherwise this is complete. Note that there is likely to be future DLC, but the table given is a good indication of how this information will be added when it is announced. MASEM (t) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is miscategorized. It's not a game! It's a list of songs. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed; only classified under "Guitar Hero soundtracks" now per other GH lists. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
—NMajdan•talk 16:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 22:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comments –
- Remove extra period at the end of the first sentence in Downloadable content section.
- "due to the addition effort needed to create the mixes." Typo.
- "as previous downloadable for games like Guitar Hero allows players on these systems to select what individual tracks to purchase." Feels like a word is missing after "downloadable". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport
- "DJ vs Guitar" → DJ vs Guitar (twice)
- more-difficult → more difficult or harder
Good job! Reywas92Talk 02:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mm40 (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
All these issues are relatively minor; I'll support when they are resolved. Mm40 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support once the typo on the downloadable section for the song DARE by The Gorillaz is fixed or explained because FreeStyleGames is listed twice. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 18:17, 2 January 2010 [34].
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I ran out of lists to write about Jesus College, Oxford, and so have moved on to the next college alphabetically, as part of my plan for world domination. I've written articles for 15 of the 54 names on the list. 7 names are "blacklinks" because I don't see that they're sufficient notable for their own articles (e.g. never made it into Who's Who, didn't get an obituary in The Times) and I don't think that being a member of the Council without more is sufficiently notable to trump a lack of coverage about them. No dab links, all images have alt-text and are from Commons, only one external link. Have fun. BencherliteTalk 22:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from the right shade of blue....
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I really have nothing to add: this is a fine list that covers an obscure but interesting topic comprehensively and well, that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Excellent work. (By coincedence, it seems likely that the black linked William Sackville-West is the father of the subject of an article I wrote a few years back: Charles Sackville-West, 4th Baron Sackville. I agree that he probably isn't notable, but I do enjoy these unexpected connections that Wikipedia can throw up).--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – There are a lot of old images in this list, and I'm uncertain about the licensing in a couple of cases for the photos next to the table. Can we find someone more knowledgeable than myself on image licensing to check the photos? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose world domination but support article
- "and many were not otherwise linked to the university": does this mean that many had no link with the university prior to joining the council, or that aside from being an alumni of the college had no connection with the university? Other than that, the lead's good and answered all my questions (how the Council was selected, its role, etc).
- Was the Warden chosen from or by the council?
Unfortunately, I can't bring any specific knowledge to this review, the subject is completely new to me. I was looking for more to say (if only so the review wouldn't look painfully superficial!), but I think the article meets the FL criteria already. Well done on creating a great list. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded as "many did not have other continuing links with the university" - some were alumni of Keble or elsewhere but were making their mark in the wider world rather than as university academics.
- I'm sure they did, will double-check my (limited) sources when I'm back at work next week and give a specific ref if possible. Thanks for your comments. BencherliteTalk 15:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Comments resolved. Good work, Mm40 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Mm40 (talk)
I'll be happy to support once these minor issues are fixed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2009 (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: