Last list under Padma Bhushan recipients category. The list is based on similar current Featured Lists 1954–1959, 1960–1969, 1970–1979, 1980–1989, 1990–1999, and 2000–2009. I am nominating this for featured list because with some inputs from you this can easily become a featured content. Looking forward to some constructive comments. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Use numbers instead of letters, per MOS:NUM. Like, forty-three should be simply 43.
Per MOS:NUMS, Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Numbers between 21 and 99 are hyphenated. I prefer to use words, just to maintain consistency across all Padma FLs.
Don't start consecutive sentences with "As of 2018".
Done
Personal preference, but I usually use † for posthumous awards, rather than hash.
I had used dagger template earlier but one of the reviewers mentioned in one of the other Padma FLCs that they had trouble doing "Ctrl+F" with dagger. So changed it altogether. This was the comment --> "Also, instead of using the Template:Dagger, can you insert the symbol "†"? The purpose of having a symbol along with colour coding is that it should help colour-blind people. But the template doesn't allow you to copy the dagger symbol and Ctrl+F it. This direct use of symbol will allow Ctrl+Fing for lazy guys like me." Let me know if that needs to changed.
"fields of Neotectonics, Sedimentology, and Environmental geolog..." no need for the capitalisation.
Done
I'm guessing you based 3/4 of the lead on previously promoted FLs? In which case some attribution (e.g. on the talk page) is needed for GFDL.
"The name of a recipient, whose award have been revoked or restored, both of which require the authority of the President" - have or has?
Done
Not sure who "the Ministers" are.
It means "the Ministers", the Chief Ministers and the Governors "of State". Linked accordingly.
I think the captions should include (awarded in X year) instead to just the year to clarify. Currently, it might be read as the year that the picture was taken in.
Done
""his contacts in the Prime Minister's Office and United States Congress"" - The quotes aren't needed as it's nothing critical.
Done
"The Government" - You might want to clarify "The Government of India" as there is a lot of USA in the paragraph. Also, it improves the context of "the country's" in the next sentence.
Done
Why mention "PMO" at the second occurrence of the Prime Minister’s Office?
Done
"Ronen Sen who was then serving" - comma needed.
Done
"had told PMO" - the?
Done
I don't know if you could call the J. S. Verma bit a controversy, but I'll leave that to you.
Right. Thats why the section title is "Controversies and refusals". Verma's inclusion is under refusals.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Didier just passed, mainly my own handiwork, but this one I picked up and ran with. Spain have been a dominant force in world football, so be able to claim to be the top scorer for such a nation makes you ultimate class, David Villa is one such individual. While his latter career has somewhat stumbled to a halt, he has been a goal machine, and this list reflects that. As ever, I offer my utmost thanks to all of you who have the time and energy to comment on the list, and I offer my usual promise that I'll get to each and every comment as soon as I possibly can. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you might need to go over the results section more carefully than I originally thought, the 2-0 and 2-1's for example, sort interspersed instead of separated. Courcelles (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
List looks fine. Has Villa ever scored directly from a freekick? Intro could state that Spain only lost twice when Villa scored, and that six of his goals were penalty kicks. Also, Villa scored in the shootouts vs Italy in 2008. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about direct free kicks, that kind of thing isn't usually notable in any way. And penalties during shootouts are not considered as "goals" in this sense. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Next up from the ESPYs stable, the Best MLS Player Award, which was introduced in 2006. As with the previous two lists nominated under my name, all comments and suggestions on how to improve the list are very much appreciated, and will be attended to as soon as possible. MWright96(talk)07:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"is presented to the professional Major League Soccer player", as the MLS is listed as a fully professional league, isn't professional redundant as all players in the league are professional?
Spot-checks of refs 12, 14, and 21 show that the content is adequately supported by the cites, although I do think it's odd that ref 12 has a different title than the cite shows. It's possible that the site changed it since it was added.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Grenoble, a time where the first major fight about sponsorship of athletes in the Winter games happened (but that's not relevant to THIS particular list). Matches the format of the recently promoted 1998 Nagano list, but this time with much less caveats and changes in the programme to document. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One is about the nations with the individuals import only in passing, this list is the opposite. We have several examples where both this list and the medal table are already FL's, some with a smaller programme than here. (See the 1924 Winter Olympics for an example.) It gets especially unfeasible for either Summer Olympics or modern Winter ones to be combined, though. Courcelles (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article looks fine. I only noticed a few red links (about the details), but that doesn't have to do with the article itself and is a really minor aspect. In my opinion it deserves FL status. Akocsg (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see a few inconsistencies. You use both "NOCs" and "NOC's" (the former is correct) and in the photo captions you have "Toini Gustafsson of Sweden (pictured here in 2014)" and "Jean-Claude Killy, here pictured in 2012," (i.e. slightly different wording and one uses parentheses where the other doesn't). Also, the Tikhonov photo caption should not have a comma after his name.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to have , their first as separate teams., when the sentence before the reader finds out it is their first Olympics as separate teams? Seems intuitive. Kees08 (Talk)09:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to not be so repetative, but I'm trying to be clear that it wasn't Germany's first medals. (Both the Wiemar Republic, and the Nazi Regeme had also won medals in addition to the unified teams of the 1950's. Courcelles (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would be hugely important in United States at the 1968 Winter Olympics if anyone ever added any prose to that article, but here? I think I could find something special to say about every gold, making me worry about calling out this one specifically as being undue weight. (I might be oversensitive, as an American, towards any overly focused comment son the US...) Thoughts? Courcelles (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an overwhelming number of accidents have happened in history where the top athletes in a sport were killed in an accident. I think that would make the comeback pretty notable. I understand your point, especially in international articles it is best to tread lightly, but I think it would be fine here. If you still do not agree, that's fine, I can cross off the comment. Kees08 (Talk)21:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. I will run through the article later and make sure everything else is good (like sources) and then support the nomination. Kees08 (Talk)21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so. It seems weird to not have a little description for each of the events, but I suppose it is a list and that's how lists go. I spot checked a few wikilinks to verify they went to the right pages. It also seems weird to have almost all the sources come from Sports Reference, but I do not think there is a requirement for variety of sources? Anyways, switched to support since what I just said are observations and not actionable comments. Good work! Kees08 (Talk)20:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some sections without images, e.g. Bobsleigh could use the contemporary image of Eugenio Monti?
I actually considered that image carefully, but notice on Commons it is listed as non-PD in the United States, meaning it is headed for an eventual deletion. Courcelles (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It might be nice in the lead to note the surprising fact that three of the speed skating events ended with multiple silvers being awarded due to two- or three-way ties.
An FLC six years in the making! I initially listed this in 2012, but withdrew it when I realised that there was the probability that the initial amateur years section was incomplete. Finally, after all this time, I managed to get a hold of the original 19th century sources today thanks to the British Library's version of the British Newspaper Archive. So with that in mind, I can say for certain that where the table doesn't list a league/cup competition in the 1800's, it means that QPR were not in a league that season. They played a lot (a lot!) of friendlies and didn't compete in a league between 1893 and 1896. The results from 1892/93 West London League is interesting, as I didn't find a final league table even in the newspaper which founded the league. The best I got was the same as the previous cite - a text listing of the points for each team in the order of positions. The West London Observer Cup and the West London Challenge Cup were run separately (both by the West London Observer newspaper) in the initial 1890/91 season, but then only the West London Observer Football Challenge Cup was run in the following years. There wasn't any details on the scorers for any of the amateur years (only very occasional match reports in fact). Miyagawa (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph, did the "St Judes" team have punctuation in the name?
In the first paragraph, the comma can be removed in "Initially an amateur side, who played..."
In the second paragraph, the semicolon should be a colon in "the English football league system;..."
I think the history section should be removed; there's already an article dedicated to it, it doesn't really relate to the "list of seasons", and you already have basic history explained in the lead
I think the dashes in "Details for abandoned competitions – the 1938–39 Third Division South Cup and the 1939–40 Football League – are shown in italics and appropriately footnoted." can be changed to commas since you have a dash overload with the date ranges
Dashes in the Top Scorer first column should be centered
Why are Positions in the Pos column wiki linked when you have the same wiki link for the season column?
Reference 3 needs to be reformatted
Overall I can tell you put a lot of work into it! I love using the really old sources! If you get a chance, I would appreciate a review on one of my listed FLCs. Jmnbqb (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. I've made those changes. If there ends up being a consensus to bring back the history summary then I can always bring it back out of an old edit - for now I've moved the relevant citations into the lead. Thanks for pointing out the MOS change, I hadn't realised that and I've been using incorrect date formats for a couple of years!! Regarding the wikilinks in the Positions and seasons, the Positions are linked to the articles for that season in the league that QPR were in while the season link on the left should be linked to the individual season articles specifically for QPR - however, where those don't exist, they're instead linked to the "xx-xx in English Football" articles. Miyagawa (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the standard format for referring to seasons is 19XX-YY, which I note you even use in the top paragraph above, yet the article consistently uses 19XX-19YY. Any reason for this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree completely with that - sporting seasons are not simple date ranges, there is a very specific style by which they are referred -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have two different red links to the same competition (West London Observer Cup (in the table) & West London Observer Football Challenge Cup (in the key).
The F* could use an explanation, i.e. why a final wasn't completed.
I've added a note to explain it. The only mention of a reason I've found is in Macey, which states that their opponents refused to play the game. While I didn't find a source for this during my newspaper trawl from that period, I did find references to QPR's opponents refusing to play other cup games due to location and dates put forward. It's likely that was the case once again. Miyagawa (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notes use different season format to table and prose.
I'd forgotten to change over the season format in the notes, but I've now reversed the previous edits so it should all match once again. Miyagawa (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Query: where are seasons post-Macy referenced?
I've added new citations from the Football Club History Database and Soccerbase for the league positions/cup results and the top scorers in each season (sadly the QPR website has removed these sort of historical results from the present version). Miyagawa (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pipe League Cup to EFL Cup in the second paragraph and in note D.
Pipe Tottenham link in note S.
1922–23 and 1923–24 season top scorer has a disambiguation needed tag.
Note G states that all Southern League First Division teams moved to the Third Division but Cardiff City moved to the Second Division so it was only the majority not all.
For some reason William Heathcote sorts top alphabetically in the top goalscorer column and his goals column is empty.
Thanks, I've fixed those issues. The Heathcote problem had arisen as I'd managed to place the template end code after the start of the next row. It stopped the goals from displaying and messed up the sorting. Miyagawa (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point, but the photo caption needs a period at the end.
No it doesn't. It's a fragment, an incomplete sentence. If it said "The Queens Park Rangers team from the 1907–08 season won the Southern League for the first time and competed in the first Charity Shield match" then it'd need a period. As it stands, it's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the table columns with figures need number sorting templates because they are being ordered by first number only when the sort button is clicked. The player goals column is fine, but the rest of them need tweaking.
No, I checked that, I think most of the problems you may be seeing are from the seasons where there are two row entries, not much can be done there. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support after trying to find something to comment on, I've got nothing. Ref 11 throws a CS1 error, with a accessdate when there's no URL. There... something. . Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this discography that I completely revised, expanded, and neatened up. It's an extensive discography, spanning over 15 years of the band's career, and is heavily referenced and organized. I am hoping it meets FL criteria and if not, I am more than willing to put in the time and work in order to meet FL requirements per reviewer suggestions. Not positive if a peer review is required prior to FL nomination. If it is, my apologies; I will delete this nomination and submit it for peer review. Thank you in advance! Miss SaritaTalk to me01:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the most obvious thing that jumps out at me is.....where are the 14 promotional singles? If they are going to be mentioned in the lead and included in the infobox then they should actually appear in the list somewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that! I removed the "Promotional singles" section because we were unable to find a reliable ref and apparently, I forgot to remove all other mention of it (I was clearly overexcited about nominating the article). I have edited the lead and the infobox to omit any references to the deleted section. Miss SaritaTalk to me21:48, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very promising. Couple questions/points:
"...and twenty-four music videos." Is a lyric video considered independent of traditional videos?
I feel like a lyric video should be considered independent of traditional videos, but that is only my opinion. All five lyric videos were released via the band's official YouTube account and three of them ("Lowlife", "Bitch Came Back", and "Hurricane") were supplemental to the official traditional music videos. Please give me your thoughts on this. The count of twenty-four is only of the traditional videos. Should I add the five lyric videos to this count? I don't mind either way. — MissSarita00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on discographies, but having just quickly scanned the discography article, I offer this suggestion: considering discographies are the "study and cataloging of published sound recordings", perhaps the videos part of the intro sentence should be re-framed in terms of the sound recordings—like "...thirty-five singles of which twenty-four have been made into music videos" (should solve the problem of multiple videos being released for single songs.) maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Sales, are you able to say in the intro what their best-selling album has been?
It's hard for me to say which is considered the "best-selling" as I was unable to find any sales data for most of the albums. Do you think the "Sales" column in the table should be removed? — MissSarita00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think album sales is just as good a measure of a album as its popularity (e.g. charts) or reception (e.g. awards/ratings) but sales data is only available via Nielsen SoundScan which isn't publicly available so its reporting is sporadic. Certification (i.e. units shipped) should be a good proxy though. So...meh...I don't mind if it is included or removed but if it is going to be included it should be also matched with a summary establishing its relevance in the intro. maclean (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I removed the "Sales" column. I think that certifications and chart rankings together can delineate what would be considered their best-selling/most popular album. I'm obsessed with consistency anyway, so two albums having sales numbers while the other four don't drove me a little crazy. — MissSarita11:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it is wrong, but the terms and wikilinks in "Hallelujah" (Leonard Cohen cover) don't look right. Isn't this a Theory of a Deadman cover of Hallelujah, not a Leonard Cohen cover? maclean (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a cover of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah". I agree that it should be changed. How should it be worded/linked? Do we even mention the original music artist or should the wikilink of the song title suffice? I will apply any changes to "Shape of My Heart" and "Cold Water" as well. — MissSarita00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclean25: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. I have only made one change to the page, but just wanted to receive feedback from you regarding my responses (seen above). Please let me know. Thank you! — MissSarita00:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I think the cover songs should include a qualifier, something like "(cover version)" beside it, maybe linked to Cover version...or even "(cover)". Where do I find the reference for those non-album singles? maclean (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Maclean25: Honestly, I looked at a couple of Featured List discographies that had cover songs listed (Christina Aguilera for the song "Lady Marmalade" and Thirty Seconds to Mars for "Stay") and they were both simply linked to the original song with no additional qualifiers. I have done the same with the TOAD discography, but I am more than happy to add something else in if you feel the need to do so. Let me know and thank you for your time on this. — MissSarita18:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yah...there probably should be a qualifiers here, either in the form of a "(cover)" or an {{:|efn}} note or something. From your examples above, the "Lady Marmalade" cover is notable enough to be a significant part of that Lady Marmalade article and the Thirty Seconds to Mars cover was added well after that article became a FL. Both those examples include citations to references, they appeared on a chart, and are notable enough to have referenced additions to those original songs' articles. These listed TOAD covers are not. And I'd prefer to deal with this article instead of debating the merits of other articles. maclean (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
maclean: My apologies. I was not trying to debate anything as I'm always open-minded to FL reviewer recommendations (and honestly, I was quite indifferent to the end result of this suggestion). I was just trying to bring up a couple examples, but your explanation definitely makes sense and I thank you for the lesson. I have added notes to each cover song. Thanks! — MissSarita16:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
26 videos for distinct tracks, or a total of 29 videos, I'm not clear on 24.
This was addressed in the comments by maclean above, but I agree that there is still a lot of ambiguity. How do you think I should word it so that it seems a little less clumsy. Should I notate that there are 24 traditional music videos and five lyric videos, separating the two? Should I omit the lyric videos entirely from the discography? Please give me your thoughts on this one. — MissSarita19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know what a "lyric video" is. It would be much simpler to say they made 29 videos, because that's what they made. That they may have made different versions of videos for the same song, matters not. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the ref for the 2003 "Point to Prove" video? If there isn't one, how do we even know it exists?
The video is on YouTube but has only been uploaded a couple times by fans (in very low quality, I might add). It seems that the music video was popular in Canada but is difficult to find online. Should I remove this item from the table? — MissSarita19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can prove the existence of the video using reliable sources, that's sufficient, you don't necessarily have to link to the video itself. But if you can't source the director etc, then it should be removed or noted that it exists but can't be sourced (probably on the talk page) to see if someone else can help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did it! I think... I found an archived copy of Billboard in which the video is listed in the section, "Video Monitor" (Billboard's tracking system for most played music videos on various television stations). Will this suffice? — MissSarita06:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Sarita it looks good. I've just arrived in Florida after a nine-hour flight and have just settled into my hotel. I'll take a one more look at it (and the sources, of course) and hopefully we're good to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope your trip to Florida is for a nice, relaxing vacation! Please, take your time. Just want to make sure that I didn't need more time to tackle more reviewers. :-) — MissSarita00:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers, like Bangor Daily News should be in italics in the refs, check all the others.
@The Rambling Man: Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the feedback and suggestions and am hoping I can address all of your concerns. The simple fixes have been completed, but I had a couple questions regarding the count of music videos in the lead and the "Point to Prove" music video. I will work on the other issues later on tonight. Again, thank you and look forward to hearing your advice. — MissSarita19:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just a heads up: A major edit was made to the "Singles" section by another editor which added some new information, rearranged the "Singles" table, and changed some wording. I only made a few tweaks and added some refs, but wanted to notate it here just in case it affects FL reviews already made by certain editors. — MissSarita04:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Sarita this nomination has somewhat stalled, would you consider trying to find other reviewers, either by pinging relevant wikiprojects or by reviewing other FLCs on a quid pro quo basis? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I noticed the review has come to a standstill. :-( I will work on contacting appropriate Wikiprojects and other users today, but while we're both here, is it uncouth for me to ask where you stand on your review? I apologize in advance if it is inappropriate to ask; please reprimand me if it is. — MissSarita14:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a FLC delegate, I tend to leave my options open so that I can close reviews without any conflict of interest. In principle I think it's of good quality. But we need a couple of other reviewers to chip in. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes complete sense. Thanks for educating me. I will get going on trying to get the ball rolling on this review. Thank you for the suggestions. — MissSarita14:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that the use of "sophomore" (as in "sophomore album") is discouraged because it is not well understood outside of the US (and Canada?).
The same applies to No. → number; alternatively, maybe use quote marks: "SOCAN No. 1 Song Award" if that is the official title. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ooohhh, I get it now. I opted to write it as "No. 1 Song Award" since that seems to be the official title of the award. — MissSarita20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The tables may not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).
The "Album details" entries use AllMusic as references. Generally, only AM reviews as considered RS; I've seen problems with its sidebar info. Have you confirmed the info with other sources (press notices, official band or record label websites, etc.)?
Question: So, I have looked aimlessly for a replacement for the AM refs regarding basic album details. I have looked at about two dozen FL discography articles for inspiration, but have found that most of them either referenced Amazon or iTunes (which I know is also discouraged), AllMusic, or didn't list a reference at all. I have heard of AllMusic not being a reliable source, but I was under the impression that the unreliability only concerned genre listings...? Would it be acceptable to cite the CD liner notes of all the albums? Your guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. — MissSarita07:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps also include Template:Discogs master, such as "Gasoline at Discogs (list of releases)". The actual album images show year, labels, and formats (but the Discogs album page info is user generated and not RS). BTW, Island Def Jam, Atlantic, and Warner appear to be distributors with 604 and Roadrunner as the labels. The TOAD website shows the release date for Wake Up Call (AM not needed).[7] —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I would like to ask if this point can be accepted by leaving it the way it is or accepted if I remove the refs entirely...? I will remove the mention of the distribution companies (Island, Def Jam, etc.), of course, but my opinion regarding the Discogs master template is that it would seem awkward to have an external link as a ref...? Or am I completely misunderstanding what you're suggesting? — MissSarita16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting using Temp:Discogs master as an inline citation in addition to the existing citations to AM reviews. Alternatively, adding TEMPLATE:Cite AV media for one of the releases (preferably the first), would show at least one label, format, and year. For example: "Gasoline (Album notes). Theory of a Deadman. 604 Records. 2005. CD back cover. OCLC60751946. 2539600062 – via Discogs. {{cite AV media notes}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)" It is a long way from ideal, but I couldn't find much else (this Billboard article notes[8] the label and release date for Gasoline). If you don't think it works, then the AM reviews are sufficient. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I'm so sorry for my brain-deadness lately. I totally see what you're saying now. I have gone ahead and added the Discogs template as an in-line ref to each album, in addition to the AllMusic references. I also removed any mention of Island Def Jam, Warner, and Atlantic Records. — MissSarita19:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I have added Template:cite AV media references as supplemental references to the AllMusic citations. Per the advice of another experienced user in the Wikipedia music world, it has also been recommended to leave the distribution labels in place. I verified that they are all listed on the back album covers. — MissSarita16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Different organizations have different threshholds for "Platinum", "Gold", etc. Maybe link Music Canada#Certification awards, etc., for the first instance (both albums & singles).
The "Singles" table is quite wide. How does it appear on portable devices? Maybe remove column(s).
Question: I checked on both a tablet (on the mobile version of the website via Google Chrome) and my Samsung Galaxy s7 edge smartphone (on the Wikipedia app) and both looked okay, but I do agree that it is pretty wide and am definitely not opposed to removing columns. Which ones do you suggest taking out? I'm thinking the UK and BEL columns... Please advise. — MissSarita02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One or two entries don't really need a separate column (use efn). Agree with removing BEL, UK, and probably the album column. Also, it's better to be consistent – if GER and UK are removed from the album table, the two tables would cover the same territories. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have removed the UK and GER columns from the "Studio albums" table and took out the UK and BEL columns from the "Singles" section. I would prefer to keep the "Albums" column simply because there are a lot of singles that cover six different albums (along with some non-album singles) and not all of them have their own article. But, of course, if you still believe it should be removed, I will do so. — MissSarita20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having those columns, even with one entry. This is merely a recommendation. There are plenty of featured lists on Wikipedia with a column with one entry. I have honestly never seen a user recommend columns be removed because there's only one entry in them. Ss11223:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Featured list criteria 5(a) includes "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour". Since there is little accompanying text, is important that a featured list have a balanced, well-structured appearance. Removing the least used columns is the easiest way to reduce overly wide tables to appear more consistent with the narrow ones (I considered recommending that those be widened). Lists that require the reader to jump back and forth have an amateurish, non-encyclopedic look. Discographies by definition are not a collection of sales statistics; no data is lost by including some entries as footnotes instead of in the tables (that's why footnotes are used). "Other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to override what works for an individual article (see Jimi Hendrix discography, a FL). It is highly unusual that a FL/GA nominator's edits are being essentially reverted without a prior discussion. I see that MS may be relatively late to the game, but has made substantial improvements to the list. Is this some kind of ownership issue? —Ojorojo (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously asking if I'm claiming ownership of this page by reverting a recommendation you made? I have no vested interest in this page, I just disagree with your assessment. Ojorojo, I see you've also worked on Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography extensively, which is not yet a featured list, and even Hendrix's primary discography—if that's your definition of what discographies are supposed to look like, that all other columns besides the UK and US get relegated to a footnote (despite Hendrix's extensive charting history in other countries), I vehemently disagree because I have not seen any other list of quality use this method. This is not an "other stuff exists" argument at the expense of this article—I'm noting that plenty of featured discographies use columns that have one entry in them all the time, and that this is not a barrier to being featured. I don't see how the current method doesn't already "work" for this individual article, and I have already told Miss Sarita the singles column is in no way that wide (it's actually quite narrow compared to some that use the full width of the page). Ojorojo, I'd think you're coming at this article with an approach to turn it into another Jimi Hendrix discography with all other chart positions besides two countries' listed in one. That's really not standard for discographies or where discographies are headed. That is in no way the best arrangement of information, and certainly not "visually appealing". This is not a case of one user makes comments are at a featured list candidacy and they're implemented without question. There are other viewpoints at stake here, and just because other users including myself are not commenting here extensively does not mean that those are disregarded or that the page has to be the way you recommend based on your non-standard preference for organising information. Miss Sarita, if I were you I'd ask for other opinions because I don't think you want a featured discography to look like Jimi Hendrix discography when very few others do (personally, I have always disliked the look of that page). Ss11202:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey... First of all, in Ojorojo's defense, it was originally my idea to remove the columns in question. Here is my opinion: If any of the band's albums or singles had charted in the top 10 (heck, even the top 25) in any European country, I don't think there would be an argument regarding their inclusion. While I am leaning more towards the removal of these particular columns, I don't feel as if my words bear much weight in comparison to two very experienced editors who happen to be at opposite sides of this debate. However, I do believe that "consensus" is in order here...? I don't know what the process is when this happens, so I will leave this section alone for now and will let you two handle it however you agree to see fit. — MissSarita02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that consensus can be reached here, because clearly Ojorojo is going to stand behind the way their featured list looks. That's their prerogative, but I don't think this approach should be utilised anywhere (else). I haven't reverted anything else besides this, and I only did on this matter because I disagree. Unfortunately for smartphones, the columns will exceed the width of the screen. That happens even when we have 10 columns full of chart entries and it's unavoidable. In no other discussion of this matter has a user suggested cutting out columns because of it, and I don't think it's necessary because there's always going to be a device that doesn't render the best version of the article. Yes, discographies are not supposed to be solely for chart columns, but I don't and am not going to agree with tiny footnotes one needs to hover over replacing columns so we can have Jimi Hendrix discography 2.0. Ss11207:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say this: the nations used should be consistent within tables. On another note, using x's within the charts looks rather awkward; just go with the blank line used for entries that did not enter certain charts. There's also too many component charts present. I can understand including one for a country in addition to its main chart, but two for Canada and four for the US is overkill. For the primary chart listings, they're fine to include even with just one entry, so I concur with Ss112. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay, so I have a proposal. A user recently changed the "Singles" table after the FLC process had started (the order of columns were rearranged and some charts added that I didn't find necessary but I left it figuring someone would edit it should it be a problem...nobody did). This is what the "Singles" table looked like beforehand.
Here's my idea: I remove the GER column from the "Studio albums" chart and the BEL column from the "Singles" chart. This leaves the UK as the only European country represented in both tables. I'll push the UK column to the end and remove some columns from the "Singles" chart. I suggest definitely keeping the following: CAN and CAN Rock (the band's country of origin), the US column (where they have been popular), and US Rock, US Main., and US Alt. (these reflect the most charted songs and are more in-line with the band's genre foundation). This will remove CAN HAC and US Adult. Per SNUGGUMS' wisdom, I will also replace the x's with mdashes.
This should satisfy everyone's desires: It shortens the overall width of the "Singles" table, still includes a European country's chart, keeps the country representation consistent, and removes extraneous information. How does this sound to everyone? (P.S. Someone ran into a pole about an hour ago and took out our power, so I apologize for any delayed responses.) — MissSarita04:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If any US components, I'd just keep US main as they seem to have had more success there than US Rock or US Alt (and certainly US Adult). Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the removal of any columns or information, as I believe it's fine as is—forgive me, I'm an inclusionist in this matter. I really don't think this is any kind of barrier to making this a featured list. I will say though that I agree with SNUGGUMS' suggestion to replace the "x"s with dashes. Ss11207:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oy indeed! Ss112 is mischaracterizing my statements and intentions here. Rather than participate in an ongoing FLC discussion which resulted in the change, he reverted MS with an edit summary that included "you don't have to agree with what reviewers of the list state. Some users have strange recommendations or non-standard views on what should be done." My recommendation was regarding the width of the tables, suggesting "Maybe remove column(s)" and "Agree with removing BEL, UK, and probably the album column." Improving visual appeal consistent with FL criteria 5a is hardly "strange". He further repeatedly asserts that I'm trying to rid the discography of all but two chart position columns. Nothing in my suggestions state or imply this. I included the link to another FL to show that there are other viable options to modifying table size (with the goal to make them more consistent). MS and Snuggums are attempting to find a compromise, but Ss112 is only interested in pursuing his agenda of only using dedicated columns to present chart info, regardless of how it impacts the overall appearance.
Discography layouts are not set in stone. When there are well-articulated reasons for taking a particular approach, they should not be ignored. Ss112's statement "I don't see that consensus can be reached here, because clearly Ojorojo is going to stand behind the way their featured list looks" is completely baseless. His statements, however, that don't show any willingness to compromise. At this point, I'll leave it to others to decide what to do.
Ss112, out of the four editors in this conversation, three are agreeing in the removal of at least one or two columns, including the user who you personally asked to jump in on this. I'm not trying to attack you, but I must admit that I'm quite irritated at the claims being aimed towards an editor who donated their time to review this discography and I'm aggravated by your blatant unwillingness to compromise. I'm a firm believer in working together when a disagreement arises. I'm not a fan of the whole "it's my way or the highway" mentality and this is not the first discussion we've had where I've seen this type of behavior from you. However, I don't want to make it seem like your opinion in this is insignificant, but coming to a compromise is a matter of "give and take". So, please tell me what it is that you want (besides keeping the table the way it is) so that I can continue working on other areas of the article. — MissSarita02:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In no way am I taking the stance that it's "my way or the highway". I offered my opinion because this is the place to make comments about the page becoming a featured list, and I offered my thoughts as to why Ojorojo said what they said. I didn't set out to "aim claims" at Ojorojo as if I have some grudge against them (I've never spoken to them to my knowledge, I just discovered upon visiting this page that it was them who worked on the Hendrix pages I have always disliked the look of), nor suggest that removing the columns was originally their idea. I will say, however, that claims I have an "agenda" rather than just noting how the majority of discographies on Wikipedia, including many better featured lists than Hendrix's discography, look, are ridiculous—I suppose that's Ojorojo's retort after my suggestion they want to make this Hendrix discography 2.0. Sure, if that's what you want to believe. Anyway, if consensus determines that columns should be removed, then obviously other users (myself included) must abide by that. You know, there are users who do not change their opinions in discussions, and I'm not obliged to for general consensus to be reached, especially if the only compromise here is "how many and which columns will be removed". To restate, I don't currently see the need to remove anything because neither the albums nor the singles table are particularly wide or exceeding 10 columns, in which case(s) I might agree with removing some columns. I don't really remember what our other conversation was about and I don't think it's relevant. Nobody is saying you can't work on other areas of the article in the meantime, so please don't make out like I'm preventing you from doing that or that my opinion is such an insurmountable obstacle for all involved. I've stated my case; the discussion can move on without me. I don't wish to be involved in this any further. Ss11207:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: Fair enough. If you disagree, you disagree. I simply wanted to give you a chance to amend my proposal or to tell us what you needed as I don't like to feel as if I'm "overriding" anyone's opinion or feelings on the matter.
@Ojorojo: I apologize for the delay in progress on this and very much appreciate your patience. I will be continuing on with your part of the review throughout the day (hopefully have it finished by this evening.
Here's what I am going to do: I'm going to slightly amend my proposal from above. Since Ss112 has disagreed with the removal of any columns, I will only remove the BEL and GER columns, and the CAN HAC and US Adult charts. This cuts out only three charts from the "Singles" table and one from the "Studio albums" table. If no one disapproves, I would like to move on with this idea. Thank you for everyone's input. — MissSarita16:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the "Traditional video" links indicate [OFFICIAL VIDEO], but under "License" they only show "Standard YouTube License" (the same designation also used by those uploaded by anyone). Are these in fact licensed by the record company (like Vevo)?
Question: How would I go about fixing this? I'm almost thinking abut removing the "Link" column altogether and relying on the refs in the "Director" column. What do you suggest? — MissSarita02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removing the links (more appropriate for the song articles). But some of the sources for the directors appear to be user generated and have a lot of advertising. Several videos on Vevo show the director and copyright year (usually same as the release) (click on "Show More" for the individual videos).[9] —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: So, I have been working on this (offline) and there are four music videos in which I couldn't locate a reliable reference for the director ("Make Up Your Mind" and "Since You've Been Gone", I was unable to find a replacement ref for unreliable sources, and "Point to Prove" and "Hallelujah", I was never able to find a reliable ref). Should these be removed from the table? — MissSarita16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some "Lyric videos" don't indicate "Official" or "authorized". Lyrics normally include a copyright statement. As an example, one Vevo lyric video includes "Lyric video by Jimi Hendrix performing 'Hear My Train A Comin'. (C) 2012 Experience Hendrix L.L.C., under exclusive license to Sony Music Entertainment".[10]
Question: I'm wondering if this section should be removed entirely. I'm not even sure it should be in the article since I was unable to find any with the copyright information and I don't really think its inclusion will make or break the article. Thoughts? — MissSarita02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Removed table, removed "Traditional videos" subsection heading (no longer necessary), and edited lead and infobox to reflect change in number of music videos. — MissSarita20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the AllMusic and Discogs discography links, MusicBrainz probably isn't needed (user edited?).
@Ojorojo: You're awesome! Thank you for such a thorough review. I have addressed the concerns that were easier to fix and will be working on the more time-consuming ones throughout the evening. I do have three questions, as notated above (under the remarks for the singles chart, traditional videos, and lyric videos). Just wanted to make sure I got those questions to you so that you had time to look it over. I will also wait patiently for your review of the refs as well. Thank you, again! — MissSarita02:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: I believe I have addressed as many of your concerns as I could for now. I look forward to hearing your advice on the four questions I have above. Thank you! — MissSarita07:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing – Looks good, but a couple appear to be WP:UGC websites: canadianbands.com ("Created and maintained by Dan Brisebois"); Cryptic Rock (on unreliable sources list); and mvdbase.com, Video Static, etc. should be replaceable with Vevo. A minor point: Template:cite web recommends using |website= or |work= for websites (AllMusic, Vevo, etc.), instead of |publisher=. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: A couple of questions above (regarding references for the music videos and the AllMusic references). Also, I wanted to point out that for the "cite web" template, |website= and |work= both italicize the name of the website being used, and according to The Rambling Man's portion of this review, certain websites are not supposed to be italicized. Therefore, I use the |publisher= parameter for this situation. Wiki formatting is also discouraged in these fields as it could "corrupt the metadata". Is there a workaround to this? — MissSarita16:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Go with what TRM suggests. Since |website= always produces italics and |publisher= is not supposed to be used, this probably should be taken up on the appropriate talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: I agree that a workaround should be located for this parameter; I'll put that task on my "to do" list. Aaaaaand, I believe your part of the review is complete, yes? — MissSarita19:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Ss112 is determined to derail this FLC. Again, he has reverted an edit without participating in the discussion that led up to it. If he had, he would have seen that Discogs is only being used as an image source for the album covers and not for its UGC text. At this point, the discography may not meet the stability requirement and further review is moot. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. *shakes tiny angry fists* I will go to his talk page and try to discuss this with him and will let you know. What happens if he and I can't come to an agreement? Is this FLC canned? — MissSarita16:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ojorojo: Can you quit it with the ridiculous accusations? I don't care whether the page is promoted to a featured list or not. Also, "unstable" because of two reverts maybe in the space of a week? That's a mighty overexaggeration. It doesn't matter what we're using Discogs for; how do we know some particularly skilled user(s) didn't fabricate said album covers? We don't. I've seen convincing bootleg scans uploaded onto Discogs before. Best to avoid it altogether per WP:ALBUMAVOID, which does not note any exceptions it can be used for. I'd appreciate if you'd drop the baseless claims I have some grudge against this FLC, Miss Sarita or yourself. I don't believe it's required that every change to a page up for FLC needs to go through its reviewer or the user nominating it (it might be best but it's not a requirement); that would kind of seem like you feel everything needs to meet your approval. WP:OWN? That's what you accused me of before. I wanted to avoid commenting here again, but you're determined to have me a part of it and I noted in my edit summary I didn't want to be. Avoid mentioning me altogether and move on with this. Miss Sarita has evidently found other sources, so you can now stop claiming I have a chip on my shoulder over this, so there's no reason to continue the mentions anyway. I'd appreciate not being pinged either (I only pinged to make it clear who I'm speaking to). Bye. Ss11200:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we all just get along! Ojorojo, I'm going to use Template:cite AV media to reference the album covers in the "Studio albums" section. It seems to be the most diplomatic route. Please let me know if you disagree. — MissSarita01:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I think everything is complete. There are still some music videos in which a reliable reference could not be found for the directors. Should these be removed from the table (perhaps with a table caption saying something like, "Selected music videos"? Otherwise, I hope everything is satisfactory and that I can get a "Support" from you. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done. I really appreciate your patience, courteousness, and time you have donated to helping promote this article. Thank you so much! — MissSarita16:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three videos entries are conspicuous by their lack of a ref. TRM thought a RS was needed for another one, so they probably need the same. I'm not sure if keeping Canadianbands.com is an oversight or it actually is a RS. Since there's been a lot of contention here, I'd like to see another support or two before I add mine. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the four music videos in question (that includes the one TRM was asking about). There's a strong possibility that there were no specific directors for most of them (the ones that marked "N/A"), so I'm not quite sure if anything can be done with those. They may never be able to be included in the table. I also removed the Canadianbands.com ref (I'm not even sure what I was using that one for). Thank you for your time. I'm going to hunt for more reviewers. — MissSarita19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ojorojo. I appreciate your work on this, even though it got questionable there for a second. Your patience on this is also commendable. Please let me know if you need anything commented on in the future. I would be happy to help in whatever way I can. — MissSarita17:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"both peaked on the Billboard 200 at number eight and charted in European countries" - wouldn't it be worth saying how high they charted (just top 50, 20, 10 or whatever should suffice)
When using {{cite AV media notes}}, you should include the published ID (see the reference named "sleeve" on Europe '72 for an example of this).
Question: Excuse my ignorance, but I'm going to assume that this is the barcode of the album cover I'm looking at, correct? — MissSarita04:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think for new-fangled things like CDs, that's right. For old-fangled LPs, the catalogue number was usually printed prominently in a corner of the rear sleeve, and on the spine (for example, if I type "Parlophone PCS" into Google, it auto-completes to "Parlophone PCS 7027" which is the catalogue number for Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)08:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Blastro is a streaming video service. It's like YouTube except strictly for music videos from both major and independent contracted music labels. But, you're right...it looks a bit sketch, so is an archived version of the video (with director information) from MTV better? I figured the reliability for a music video can't get much better than with MTV. I might just cry if you tell me this is unacceptable (just kidding...maybe). :-) — MissSarita05:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: You are totally awesome! I'm currently at work, but I will get right on these tonight when I'm home! I thank you and appreciate you coming to take a look at this and hopefully give it some much needed "Support"! — MissSarita20:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I believe I have finished all of your requests, but of course, please let me know if you have any more suggestions/comments. Thank you soooooo much for your help! I owe you! — MissSarita15:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is referencing the singles which were released, which have no articles and which did not chart anywhere (e.g. "Point to Prove", "Better Off" etc)?
Eek...nothing right now. I had four song articles deleted due to a violation of WP:NMUSIC. I will search for refs, but what happens if I can't find any? And if I do find refs supporting that they were indeed released as singles, should I place the ref after the title of the song? — MissSarita20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid spaced hyphens in reference titles, e.g. ref 36 "Theory of a Deadman - Awards", per MOS:DASH.
@The Rambling Man: Thanks for making a second sweep and bringing up some points. Just had some questions above. (I promise, there will be less questions if I ever nominate another discography!). Also, there were some refs that couldn't be located to cite the directors of certain music videos (even though their existence could be proven). Some folks figured it would be best to remove those particular videos from the table. How do I reflect this new number of music videos in the lead and the infobox? I feel it would be misleading to mention only the number of videos in the table, since more were actually released... Thanks in advance! — MissSarita20:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If items in the discog can't be reliably verified, they can't really stay in the article. As a minimum I'd move them to the talkpage and maybe request at the discog project or music project or similar for help in finding sources. As for your release dates, if "North America" means every territory in the table, no, it's fine as it is, I just needed to check that Canada and the US (for instance) didn't have different release dates. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Okay, here's what I did: I removed three music videos in which there were zero sources regarding directors (I'm not sure there was a specific director involved), but those have been moved to the talk page. I found refs for the "Singles" section but two of them are iffy (I've noted them in the edit summaries). If those are not okay, I will remove them from the table, and then everything should be complete. — MissSarita04:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Continuing my meandering walk through the catalogs of 1990s video game developers, I've now come to Raven Software; like the previoustwo companies, Raven's 25-year journey has a notable arc. Starting off as a small computer RPG developer, they were quick to jump on the FPS bandwagon after id Software, briefly their neighbors in Madison, Wisconsin, basically invented the genre. After selling themselves off to Activision, Raven started to hit the big time with major licenses like Star Wars and the X-Men... only to completely fall to pieces after two games in a row were commercial failures in 2009-10. In the 8 years since, they've been a developer on 10 Call of Duty games... which is worse than it sounds, as that series has 3 developers who get their names on the box, none of which are Raven. They continue to exist, but are pretty much just Activision's "helper" team at this point rather than a developer of their own. In any case, I've created this list and documented their catalog here in the same style as other video game company FLs I've done, and I think it's ready to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN22:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add the year to Black Crypt in the lead? All other games have a year following the game.
Years added to this and all others in the lead.
I would prefer "id" be referred to as "id Software" in the lead. The wiki page id Software doesn't introduce "id" as being a common name for the company, or if you want to use just "id" at least introducing that as a common nickname in the lead.
Done
Date range in lead needs to be full dates per MOS:DATERANGE. Also, the dash should be an endash instead of an emdash.
Done
I think the lead needs more references.
What needs a reference? Paragraph 1 is all cited to reference 1, and all the parts of paragraph 2 that are not referenced are descriptions/summaries of parts of the table
Some of the statements that popped out to me that possibly need a reference are "...the company formed a relationship with id Software, which was briefly located on the same street." and "In 1997, Raven made an exclusive publishing deal with Activision, and the Raffel brothers subsequently sold the company to Activision." and I wasn't sure if those statements were backed up in Ref 1
In the second paragraph, there's games with no dates.
Done
In the second paragraph, I think the tense needs to change in "Following the layoffs, Raven has been focused..." from "has been focused" to "focused". Also apply the tense for later sentences in the paragraph.
Done.
Under "X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse", "Mobile" shouldn't be capitalized (or you can rearrange for Mobile phones to be the first system in the line)
Done
Should Reference 5 cite "Kushner pp. 118–121" instead of "Masters of Doom, pp. 118–121"? Also apply for other similar references.
That's the Harvard style, which I don't feel obliged to follow, but since there's only one book source here I've just changed it anyway.
*Not seeing a source for the "based in Middleton, WI" clause
I've reconsidered being so exact, so changed to Madison, Wisconsin, which is in the source for that paragraph (Middleton is a suburb of Madison, and even Raven's own website just says that they're in Madison.
"Epic Games has worked on over 50 games since 1991, and has multiple games under development." This has relevance why?
Whoops, that got added a couple hours ago because I had 2 tabs open; was meant for List of games by Epic Games.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list after successfully promoting the singer's list of recorded songs to FL status. The article was previously merged to the main subject's page as it had little to no sources. However, following an edit request granted by one of the admins involved during the AfD, I began work on improving the article and sourcing out reliable citations. It has undergone a GOCE copy-edit to improve its lead section. Constructive criticism, in any form and from anyone, will be appreciated. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* "Regine Velasquez is a Filipino singer and actor" - actress pls.
Done
"Velasquez signed a record deal with VIVA Records in 1987 and released her eponymous debut album" - did she do both of these things in 1987? If so, I would place "in 1987" at the beginning of the sentence so that it applies to both.
Done
"The album produced three singles; "Kung Maibabalik Ko Lang", "Urong Sulong" and "Isang Lahi"." Not sure you need this unless any of these singles won an award.
Agree. Removed these.
"Her succeeding albums Nineteen 90 (1990) and Tagala Talaga (1991) established her as a leading Filipino pop artist" - source please.
You're right, it does sound ambiguous. I removed that line and continued with the awards she has won for the albums "won her the awards as the Most Popular Female Entertainer at Box Office Entertainment Award ceremonies in 1991 and 1992"
"In the same year, she recorded Muli, a duet with Gary Valenciano for his ninth studio album Hataw Na. The former won an Awit award for Best Performance by a Female Recording Artist, while the latter received a Best Performance by a Duet at the seventh Awit Awards." I'd like suggest a better alternative (or at least I think so). "She won Awit Awards for Best Performance by a Female Recording Artist for the single and Best Performance by a Duet for recording a duet with Gary Valenciano for his ninth studio album Hataw Na".
Done. Just tweaked it a bit to read as "She won Awit Awards for Best Performance by a Female Recording Artist for the single and Best Performance by a Duet for "Muli" with Gary Valenciano, a single from his ninth studio album Hataw Na"
"She starred in the motion picture Kailangan Ko'y Ikaw (2000) and released the soundtrack's lead single, which won the.." - a single that has won that many awards should be definitely be named.
Agree, The movie and the single are titled the same, so I stated as "eponymous lead single" to avoid being redundant.
"She appeared in romantic comedy films" - maybe "the romantic comedies" instead of "romantic comedy films". Also, the mention of these films after music is a little abrupt. Maybe add a "then" before appeared?
Done.
Not sure what is the purpose of the footnote in this list. "Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination." Is there any such award she has won (without garnering a prior nomination)?
In fact there is. The Anak TV Award and Box Office Entertainment awards do not have nominations. Awards are announced beforehand and given during the ceremony.
Done for Publishers/newspaper/magazines with Wiki links.
FrB.TG, thank you for your comments. I have addressed the above. Look forward to any additional comments you may have. Much appreciate your time. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*"Her succeeding albums Nineteen 90 (1990) and Tagala Talaga (1991) won her the awards as the Most Popular Female Entertainer at Box Office Entertainment Award ceremonies in 1991 and 1992." - not as, but "for" the Most Popular...
Done
"She also won as the Most Popular Female Entertainer at 30th Box Office Entertainment Awards, making Velasquez the first female artist in that award show's history to receive the honor for the tenth consecutive year." - the repetition of female is odd here
*who has received many awards and nominations for her work in music, film and television → more encyclopedic: who has received several awards and nominations for her contribution to the music, film and television industry.
Done. (music, film and television are already implied as industries/fields, so I excluded the mention)
at Box Office Entertainment Award ceremonies → at the Box Office Entertainment Award ceremonies
Done. thanks for this!
included the single "Sana Maulit Muli". She won Awit Awards for Best Performance by a Female Recording Artist for the single and Best Performance by a Duet for "Muli" with Gary Valenciano on his ninth studio album Hataw Na. → included the single "Sana Maulit Muli", which won her an Awit Award for Best Performance by a Female Recording Artist. On the same occasion, she received an award in the Best Performance by a Duet category for "Muli" with Gary Valenciano on his ninth studio album Hataw Na.
The above suggestion sounds a bit clunky to me. I may stick with this original writing suggested by FrB.TG.
In support of the album, she headlined → you can leave "of the album" out, as it isn't needed and repeats "album" again
the repetition would not be odd here, especially that they are not in the same sentence. I need to retain it otherwise it would be, in support of what?
She also won as the Most Popular Female → The singer was also named the Most Popular Female
Done
the first artist in that award show's → the first artist in the award show's
Done
She starred in the motion picture → She also starred in the motion picture (for better flow)
Done
and her second Awit Award for Best Performance → as well as her second Awit Award for Best Performance
Done
Her eleventh studio → The singer's eleventh studio album (alternation)
Done
Of All The Things → Of All the Things
Done
Awit Awards' Dangal ng Musikang Pilipino → a translation in paranthesis would be nice
Awards in foreign language doesn't really warrant a translation, unless a sourced translation from the award giving body is available. In this case there is none.
The infobox should only contain information on the wins and noms for award ceremonies that have an article on Wikipedia.
I believe that defeats the purpose of the infobox. As this is about the awards and NOT the award ceremonies, since not all awards/ceremonies have Wikipedia entries. See references to other FLs on musician awards Lady Gaga, Bruno Mars, Adele.
Thanks The Rambling Man, well-noted. Fixed the list as per the above comments. Reduced list and retained notable/major award-giving organizations/ceremonies. Awaiting for your review. Let me know if you have other concerns that need to be addressed. Cheers! --Pseud 14 (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing award-giving organisations that Wikipedia does not find notable, e.g. Catholic Mass Media Awards, Katha Music Awards and Monster Radio Awards. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
After the behemoth that was Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of London Monopoly locations, it was time for another "mega-project" and this time it's London termini. As it's another good topic, we're going to need another featured list to tie everything together, and that's why this is here. London is full of terminal stations, and there are more of them than you might realise. Some are big, like Waterloo, some are not-quite-so-big like Marylebone, and some like Old Street just invite people to scream "what is this doing on this list?" Still, there's a well-defined set with a finite amount of entries, so it makes sense to create an appropriate list around it, add some general history of London terminal stations as a whole, and see if it meets the FL criteria. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would remove the repeated ones, and keep the former stations under it's current heading. No need to list all stations twice right beside each other. Mattximus (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes begin with capitals, others do not. Need to be consistent.
To quote the 2009 doc "Better Rail Stations", part A, section 2.1 "The stations were classified into six categories (A – F) at rail privatisation in 1996 on the basis of passenger footfall and annual income." --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep a note to that effect would be advisable. Even with specifics as to what the six categories actually mean. Otherwise it's quite mysterious.
A mention of Charles Pearson's proposal for an Central Railway Terminus might also be worth including as that was one of the reasons for the Royal Commission. This might go in a note.
"The effective path of the London Inner Ring Road (except running closer to the Thames between Borough High Street and Vauxhall Bridge) was chosen as a central area through which no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter..." This reads as if the London Inner Ring Road was a thing in the 1840s when the Commission made its decision. As a designation it dates from proposals in the County of London Plan from the 1940s. The actual area of the Commission's ban was bounded by London Bridge, Borough High Street, Blackman Street, Borough Street, Lambeth Road, Vauxhall Road, Vauxhall Bridge, Vauxhall Bridge Road, Grosvenor Place, Park Lane, Edgware Road, New Road, City Road, Finsbury Square, and Bishopsgate (a citation for this can be found in "Metropolitan Railway Termini". The Times (19277). 1 July 1846. p. 6. - there is a linked source for this in ref 7 of Metropolitan Railway.)
I've reworded this, and used a source that just summarises the "highlights" of the Royal Commission's recommendations after discussion with Pearson, so that should sort all that out. If you think the full list should be used, then we can look at that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"...no trains north of the Thames were allowed to enter...". This suggests that no construction north of the Thames was allowed within this area, though Cannon Street and Charing Cross are both north and within the area proposed by the Commission's recommendation (Victoria is just outside).
"The only main railway line built across Central London was the London, Chatham and Dover Railway (LCDR) line connecting Blackfriars to Farringdon..." You could add a note mentioning that the North Western and Charing Cross Railway was also approved in 1864 as a tunnelled line between Euston, St Pancras and Charing Cross stations, though it was never built.
No problem. The NW&CCR was a cut and cover route intended to link the mainline stations, so not really the same as the CCE&HR, which came from a different set of proposals, though it followed a similar route in the central area.--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1864 Joint Committee on Railway Schemes (Metropolis)..." could link to Joint committee#United Kingdom to indicate what this was.
"By this time, around 776 acres (314 ha) of land in Central London was owned by railway companies, more than the Corporation of London." I think the area of land used might be more easily understood if expressed in square miles and square kilometres rather than hectares, for example "around 776 acres (1.22 square miles, 3.14 square kilometres)". Do we know what is the definition of "Central London" used by Ball and Sutherland? Do we know what the area of that is? It might be useful to say what the railway land was as a fraction or percentage of the total.
I'm ambivalent about what gets converted from what to what, does the {{convert}} template support it, though? Ball and Sunderland says, verbatim, "In 1900, 776 acres of central land was owned by railway in London - so that they ruled over more metropolitan land than the Corporation of London". I've got another source that supplies the percentage, it's not a great source but it should be sufficient for verifying numbers. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be done:{{convert|776|acre|sqmi km2|2|abbr=in}} gives 776 acres (1.21 square miles; 3.14 square kilometres). I think the conversion from acres to square miles is of value as the source uses the words "ruled over". I think the comparison the source is making is to the City of London being traditionally known as "the square mile". The Corporation of London does not own the area of the City obviously, though the parks and open spaces it does own in Epping Forest, Hampstead Heath and other green spaces around London totals about 4,200 hectares (10,000 acres) - considerably more than that of the railway companies. I think the conversion from acres to square miles is useful, therefore, to illustrate the comparison.--DavidCane (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Circle Line was first planned in 1846 and built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries..." The "Inner Circle" was completed on 6 October 1884, so the early 20th century is not applicable here.
"As an alternative to the tube, buses have connected the various terminals and inter-termini links became briefly popular in the 1920s and 1930s". What are "inter-termini links"? Are they buses?
Penultimate paragraph of "Background" section. Much of the terminus rebuilding took place in the 20th century. Aside from Euston, London Bridge and Blackfriars which were all rebuilt in the 20th and/or 21st centuries, Paddington (1906 to 1915), Victoria (1899 to 1908), Waterloo (1903 to 1925 in stages) were all rebuilt in the early 20th century.
Supplementary comment: Of the original stations, King's Cross and Paddington are also Grade I listed and Marylebone, Victoria (both parts), Liverpool Street and the front parts of Charing Cross and Fenchurch Street are Grade II listed. I have linked listed building and added a source for St Pancras.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"All stations except Fenchurch Street have provided taxi services since opening." From the following context, I assume that this is intended to indicate that cabs could enter the station and drive alongside the platform. Some of the stations certainly had/have access roads for vehicles including cabs to come into the stations alongside the platforms (I've seen these at Marylebone, Paddington, Victoria and Liverpool Street), but I don't think it would have been possible at Blackfriars which is on a viaduct without much space, so "all" except Fenchurch Street may be incorrect. In any case "provided taxi services" needs clarification I think as a cab could be hailed outside any of the stations.
I've reworded this, also the source actually says Fenchurch Street and Blackfriars didn't have dedicated cabs (see own article for a more detailed explanation why) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural impact": I'm not sure that it can be said that the construction of the stations immediately led to the creation of slums in all cases. One of the reasons that some of them were sited where they were was because slums were already there, so the land was cheap to buy. Somers Town had already started to decline into slums by the time Euston and King's Cross were built.
Also, not all of the stations were surrounded by slums. Paddingon and Victoria stations both had quite elegant and affluent streets around them.
The source (Jackson) disagrees and says "This degeneration, sometimes all around ... was most marked at Paddington, Victoria, Waterloo and the Euston-St Pancras-King's Cross complex." In the case of Trellick Tower, it was only its re-appraisal from the 1990s onwards that really caused the long-awaited gentrification of the area around Paddington. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)17:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that the much of the areas around the stations did degenerate into slums eventually, but I think that there are two problems with the way this is presented at the moment: time compression and the size of the areas being considered. The wording "immediate social impact on their surrounding area from the mid-1850s onwards" and "the middle class moved out into suburbs" gives the impression that the areas became slums immediately, which is not the case. Charles Booth'spoverty map of London produced for Life and Labour of the People in London (1886 to 1903) shows that the areas immediately around Paddington and Victoria stations were mostly occupied by "Middle Class, Well to Do" and "Upper-middle and upper classes. Wealthy" (you can see the map here). The descent into slums in these areas came later and the impact was quite broad across much of central London, including areas which are now amongst the most desirable places to live (Notting Hill from the 1950s to the 1970s was a very troubled area). I'm not sure how the Trellick Tower has an impact on gentrification around Paddington as it is 1.2 miles away from Paddington station (further than Grosvenor Square at the heart of Mayfair is in the opposite direction) and it isn't in a gentrified area itself.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done That's more balanced. It's definitely the case that the railways facilitated and encouraged the rapid expansion of the city. In proposing the central terminus and the Metropolitan Railway it was Charles Pearson's hope and aim to enable the working man to live further from his workplace in better conditions.--DavidCane (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does he say when this was? The wording seems phrased for sneering and salacious effect. What's wrong with "cheap souvenirs" and the mention of contraceptives and "provocative literature" seems to be designed to hint at smuttiness.--DavidCane (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Once built", which implies straight after opening. It also says that Parliament passed laws in the 1880s to restrict railway growth around London to counteract this, but the damage had been done by then. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that the stations led to the encouragement of prostitution is contradicted later in the paragraph where the construction of Waterloo station is given as a reason for the area being cleaned-up.
Second table: Despite its name, Kensington (Olympia) station is mostly in the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. The borough boundary runs along the railway line and the station buildings are on the west (H&F side). Only the secondary entrance from Russell Road and the southbound platform are in RBK&C. see [14]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments from Epicgenius:
I'm from New York, so I can't pretend to know what's going on here. However, I was wondering if a map could be added to this article. It would be really helpful to have a location map on this list for foreigners like me. (Just to clarify, this is optional, but can be made really quickly using the coordinates already in the article.)
I must have missed something, because I can't figure a way of doing that without copy and pasting all the co-ordinates into the template, instead of having them in-place so the OSM / KML links work. Or is that the "really quickly" option? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So from what I am reading, you can buy a London Terminals ticket to go from any station in the suburbs to a station in the London station group, provided that there's a direct route from the suburban station to the London "terminal" station. Is that correct? I think you can change the lead to say that.
Not just the suburbs, from anywhere around the country, plus you can apparently do slightly bonkers things like get a train from Chelmsford to "London Terminals", get off at Stratford, potter about East London on the tube with an Oyster Card, and get back on again at Stratford for another stop down to Liverpool Street. Confused - you will be! I've added a sentence explaining how the ticket works. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)22:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would be confusing for us Yankees. Especially for the Yankees.Thanks for clarifying this, I still had one question - what's a "reasonable route"? Would this mean if I started at Ealing Broadway, I couldn't go to Victoria? I think the "reasonable route" phrase should be clarified further, to note that the trip would not be considered reasonable if you have to transfer 10 times (or something like that) to get there. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a rather thick volume called something like the National Routeing Guide, it describes what may be considered to be a reasonable route. Starting at Ealing Broadway, the only valid London terminal would be Paddington. But starting further out at Reading, valid termini would be Paddington and Waterloo; you might make a case for travelling to Victoria by changing at Clapham Junction. Starting even further out, valid termini from Oxford would be the same as Reading plus Marylebone. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I suppose we should include a mention of this guide if possible. Not to be nitpicky or anything, but one person's reasonable route might be another person's never-in-a-lifetime path. Of course, if the "reasonable routes" are the routes that a person with common sense would take (i.e. not going in the reverse direction to go to another terminal), it should be phrased in that way instead. epicgenius (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think we should only add it if a third-party source talks about it any more than "any reasonable route". Maybe that's something that Hassocks can deal with, as mentioned below. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)12:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Following the initial building boom, stations needed to be expanded and widened, which happened throughout the century - I find this sentence in particular awkward, because the middle phrase is stating the obvious. How about something like "Following the initial building boom, stations were expanded and widened throughout the century due to increased demand"?
several times in the case of London Bridge - I also found this awkward. I feel like it would be better if the sentence said, "...and London Bridge was rebuilt several times".
It's tricky, I know. Let me put it another way: if I said "Around 300 pounds of weapons was destroyed", that would be incorrect because I was referring to pounds, not weapons. I can verify by simplifying this sentence to "Around 300 pounds ... was destroyed", which is obviously incorrect. So in that same pattern, you can simplify to "Around 300 acres (120 ha) ... was taken up by railway lines and interchanges", which doesn't fit. "Were", however, would work with this type of sentence, no matter if you're talking about land, weapons, or something else.The sentence would also be grammatically correct if you said, "a 300-acre (120 ha) area around Battersea and New Cross was". In this case, "was" refers to "area", which is singular. epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
National services were introduced to Olympia in 1986, meaning it could be used to interchange with the tube network, as could changing at Clapham Junction. These gradually ran down again, meaning the station was no longer an obvious "London Terminals" depot. I don't have a source that explains that as the reason, and I can only go on what was in cited in the article for a long time as a reference to the relevant National Fares Manual, which is at least verifiable if somebody can dig out a copy. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. I suppose there aren't any more issues that I could see. I thereby support this nomination. epicgenius (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment: Ritchie333, The Rambling Man, Epicgenius: over the next few days I can deal with sourcing and, if necessary, improving the ticketing side of this article (including the Kensington Olympia anomaly, definition of reasonable/permitted routes and so on), as this is one of my specialisms and I have various sources. I don't want to overload the article with too much intricate detail, though, so I might draft something and put it here for consideration. Separately, I created and uploaded the non-free image File:APTIS Tickets x6 - Variations on LONDON.jpg many years ago; it was my first and only attempt at writing a non-free rationale, so I don't know if it needs improving or even whether it is appropriate to retain the image in the article ... one for the image specialists to comment on, I suppose. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)12:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hassocks5489: That would be excellent. As you can probably guess, I originally intended to simply create List of London terminal stations and run with that; then somebody pointed out what exactly qualifies as a "London terminal", then I discovered this article via this and this and thought, "well if we've got a reliably sourced definition of a London terminal, then we should use that". I think it would be extremely helpful to tidy up the loose ends regarding how Olympia ended up on the list, and what a "reasonable route" is. Why isn't Stratford on the list? I think the FUR is sufficient; to be honest it's right on the limit of a "threshold of originality", being the old BR logo and a bunch of text. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so as not to overload the main WP:FLC page with notes and references, I've posted a suggested revision of the "Definition" paragraph at the following user subpage: User:Hassocks5489/Images. The wording is a rough first draft, so please suggest/make improvements. I've tried to cover all points discussed above without going into too much unnecessary detail, and have tried to find suitable references for everything. Some points:
Moorgate was a funny one because in the 1983–86 era it was half-in, half-out of the group (!): it counted as a London station only from the Northern City Line direction, not from the Widened Lines. When it was put back in the group in 1988, it was available via both routes ... but the intermediate Thameslink stations of Farringdon and Barbican were not (and never have been) included. And that's a whole other story.
I know why Kensington Olympia was removed in 1994, but I can't find suitable sourcing and it's too technical for this article anyway.
Again, there are reasons why "LONDON BR" was changed to "LONDON BRIT RAIL" on tickets, and why "LONDON" did not appear immediately after privatisation, but unless there is general agreement to include discussion of these obscure technical points I won't introduce them.
I have hard copies or scans of all the offline sources mentioned, in case anybody would like any source checking, wording confirmation etc.
Maybe note A can be integrated into the prose itself? The note is disconnected from the rest of the article, since the note names nine stations without any prelude.
Kensington Olympia was removed from May 1994 is missing a few words, so this would be "Kensington Olympia was removed from the list in May 1994". Along these lines, a short explanation might be nice.
Ref 13 "General Notes" has a cite error. Since we're aiming for Featured List, this is an issue that needs to be fixed. I think you can work around it by placing the "Unpaginated" note outside the template. epicgenius (talk) 03:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This review appears to have fizzled to a halt. There has been a lot of constructive comments, particularly from David, and the article is in a better shape, but I'm not sure if there's consensus or not to promote as an FL. Any other thoughts? Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 well we'd normally be looking for three or more supports and all open comments to be resolved before promoting. Perhaps you could chase up the reviewers to see how we stand. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have just seen this as I have not looked at FLC for a while. I found the article interesting, well written and suitably referenced. A few minor comments:
In the current stations list if you sort by "Annual entry/exit" the numbers sort appropriately but the green or red triangles are interspaced. I think I know what these mean (that it was an increase or decrease on the preceding year) but I can't see this explained anywhere.
In the "Background" section it is mentioned that St Pancras is a Grade I listed building, but I believe many of the others are also listed and these are not mentioned (probably not vital but might be worth mentioning).
I've dropped in a sentence saying that King's Cross and Paddington are also Grade I listed, so we've got all them. (I don't think any others are Grade I are they?) Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:34, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hassocks did that bit - to be honest, it's mostly text, the only possible thing that takes it over the threshold of originally in my view is the colours and the BR logo, but file copyrights aren't my speciality. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)20:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Support, although it might be worth changing "Nineteen of his goals were scored in his home stadium of Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan" to "Nineteen of his goals were scored in his hometown stadium of Stade Félix Houphouët-Boigny in Abidjan", as the former version could be read as suggesting that it is the home stadium of the team he plays for..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ivorian is linked in the opening sentence, WP:OVERLINK states against linking nationalities.
I'd buy it if I could guarantee that more than half Wikipedia's readers knew what Ivorian meant, let alone had heard of the Ivory Coast. I think common sense trumps MOS here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Even the archive links for the FIFA references don't work for me but perhaps it's my issue? Do they work for you? The Yahoo one is fine, I misclicked the link on that one. Kosack (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I went out on a limb and tried something new with this list. There's other similar Mr. Basketball lists, but I expanded this one to include more substantive notes and information than the others. Jmnbqb (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think a quick mention of where the name comes from would be useful; I know that the nickname of Missouri is the Show-Me State, but other readers may not.
Explanation added to lead.
Why is CBC abbreviated? It makes sense for very well-known schools like SMU, LSU, UCLA, etc., but in this case, for a high school, with no other note? I think it should be written out.
High school is spelled out.
Why is there an extra line break in Biedschied's colleges?
What makes germanhoops.wordpress.com a reliable source? It appears to be someone's personal blog.
Although it's a wordpress, the "about" page (here) seems to detail a credible author (a lot more so than some random blog). Additionally, it's one of the only English sources I could find on German basketball league players.
What makes campuspressbox a reliable source? It appears to be an amateur group blog (it even has a "staff login" link in the bottom footer).
Yes it comes off as a amateur group blog, but I think there's a lot of indicators that show that it's more than than that. They have 2 regular podcasts, an active Facebook and Twitter account (over 12,000 tweets), and an organization hierarchy having executive editors and 14 listed contributors.
Fixed one instance. However, the school is known as "Saint Louis University" while newspapers are known for containing St. Louis such as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch so I kept that consistency.
" Georgian national basketball team" no n in Georgia.
Fixed.
"a bus trip" was that taking or missing a "bus trip" that was part of the reason for his dismissal?
I was taking some time to think about the GermanHoops site; it still feels a little sketch, but I'm going to go with it due to both writers being current/former writers for a professional site on the subject. Also, honestly, there's not going to be a ton of ESPN-level sites on German basketball in any language. Promoting. --PresN20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment The newer standard for featured list suggests you do not use terms like "In the following table" or "In the table below", as it's redundant. In fact the whole line "the UNESCO data includes the site's reference number and the criteria it was listed under: criteria i through vi are cultural, whereas vii through x are natural." can go since you already put cultural or natural in brackets in the table itself. No need to repeat. Also You can only nominate 1 list at a time, I see you have 2 open right now. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I can remove that line. As for two lists ... I checked again, you are right. This must have skipped my eye since I previously had two open nominations and so did other editors and noone pointed this out. I should pay better attention next time :) --Tone21:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually okay to have multiple nominations, but when nominating two at once with similar subject matter and therefore possible similar problems, it's better to wait for one to get close to promoting consensus, at least that's what I've been doing with the Laureus lists. I suggest I close one for the moment, which would you prefer? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should freeze one then - is there a way to do it without bot recording a failed nom (as it was a technical freeze, not a failed nom in fact)? Let's freeze the Bosnia one as the discussion is taking place here. My reasoning is that I already got three lists on similar topic passed so there should be little issues that have not been sorted out in the previous noms already. --Tone17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have dedicated articles. I could either link them to the municipality articles, which do not even mention the monuments, or to the general article, which again does not say anything in particular about the two specific sites. --Tone07:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" Montenegro declared independence in 2006 and succeeded the convention on 3 June 2006." This does not sound right. "acceded to" the convention?
"As of 2017, there are four sites in Montenegro inscribed on the list" The word "inscribed" seems to be superfluous. Is inscription different from listing? If it has a technical meaning this should be explained; otherwise I suggest not using it.
I think it would be helpful to point out that two sites were listed before Montenegro existed.
"limestone massive" massif?
"It was founded in the 15th century and saw a major urban development in the 19th century." It should be "major urban", deleting the word "a", unless you mean one specific development.
A column for the coordinates of each site would add to the list's value.
@BeatlesLedTV:, @Dudley Miles:: Done, please check. It is always great to have a native speaker doing the proofreading. As for coordinates, I am currently using the format without them. While it is easy to add coordinates for some places, say Kotor, other cases are tricky. For example, there are three Stećci sites and in Bosnia, there are 20. This is why they are shown on the map instead. --Tone20:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly - this is one central point for over 20 sites scattered around the region - therefore not particularly useful, IMO. For example, these coordinates point to a location in Bosnia. --Tone07:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Venetian Works of defence between 15th and 17th centuries" don't pipe this unnecessarily to a redirect.
Is "ii iii" deliberate in the second table for the UNESCO criteria, as opposed to having a comma between them?
"17th Centuries" Centuries in the lead "centuries" in the table.
You have "Historic Core" capitalised, presumably because the source does too, yet you have "Biogradska Gora National Park" while the source says "’Biogradska gora’ National Park". What's the methodology here?
" that belongs to the" shouldn't that really be "that is part of"?
"World Heritage List " or "World Heritage list "? Notes say one thing, prose says other.
"the Fortifications of Kotor" no need for capital F.
You link "limestone" but not "massif" or "monolith". I'd say the former was more commonly known than the latter two.
"1,000 kilometres" convert please.
Link "Lombard region".
"The introduction of gunpowder led to significant shifts in military techniques and architecture." unclear what this means specifically to this site.
" Illyrian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Slavic, Venetian and Ottoman." probably worth linking all of these, since at the least Illyrian, Hellenistic, Byzantine, Slavic and Ottoman may not be commonplace to the majority of readers, and it would be odd to link those and leave Roman and Venetian unlinked...
"by the Western and Eastern Goths and" comma after Goths.
@The Rambling Man: I think I fixed all the issues. Cetinje Historic Core is what the source says while Biogradska Gora is the article title, this way avoiding the redirect. As for World Heritage List, I made this use consistent when used in the whole phrase, when just list, I use it without capital L. Virgin forest linked to Old-growth forest, it is a synnonim. --Tone16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The introduction needs some work. Half of the first paragraph (well...one of two sentences) is about the political history of Montenegro. Shouldn't this introduction focus on the subject of the article which is World Heritage Sites? Each paragraph should deal with one theme. The first sentence of the first two paragraphs seem related...and it looks like you are going for a history theme in that second paragraph but that first and last sentence is out of place. The last paragraph needs to get to the point and to say 'there are currently no endangered sites', one of them was endangered, now its not...and the relevance of what that means. Also, can you provide a rationale for the Location column in the intro? The lead mentions that first site is in the Bay of Kotor area but is silent on the rest...which leads me to think 'where is the column's relevance?' It appears that column is identifying location as a municipality in two rows and a general geographic area in the two. Shouldn't this be consistent, like all municipalities? Of course, then I would just ask 'what do municipalities have to do with World Heritage Sites...but then I guess it is just as arbitrary as regions of Montenegro. Is that what that location map showing: municipalities? I kind of have the question about the UNESCO data column (the Tentative list labels the column "UNESCO criteria"): shouldn't the intro introduce the relevance of those numbers and numerals? Also, why so little in the intro about the Tentative list (only half a sentence) when the rest of the article is pretty much giving it equal weight to the main list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maclean25 (talk • contribs)
@Maclean25: I made some changes to the intro in line with your comments. To me, the structure makes sense and is in line with other FLs on the topic - what are the WHS and when the country in question joined the convention, then some discussion about the sites themselves, and the last paragraph if there are/were any particular things going on, such as listing/delisting the sites as endangered. I would not go further in the details what listing as endangered site means in this article, we have a dedicated one which is linked...
I see your point regarding the location column. I was trying to be as concise as reasonable - for places like Cetinje which is a city, one can be more specific than the municipality itself, while the Bay of Kotor covers a larger area with several municipalities, so I went with the broader region. Could list the municipalities as well, what do you suggest?
As for the UNESCO data/criteria - following the previous pattern here. WHS have serial numbers which are listed here. For tentative sites, we just list the criteria. In earlier iterations, the year of inscription was listed here as well but was later moved to a separate column for easier sorting purposes. --Tone13:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question, the only relevant location criteria the intro makes is that they are all in Montenegro. If you want to list the sites by municipalities or regions (or some other geographical subdivision of Montenegro) then it should be justified in the intro. The lead should summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. maclean (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have not been addressed. These are the edits that were made. An FLC delegate has corrected me that FLs do not need to meet MOS:LEAD or MOS:BEGIN, so that part can be struck from my concerns above, but it is still my view that this lead section is not adequately summarizing the body with appropriate weight (e.g. explaining the relevance or significance of the "location" and "UNESCO data" columns and the little relative weight given to the tentative list) and the writing should be improved (e.g. not sticking off-topic sentences into a paragraph about something else), as I noted above. maclean (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maclean25 Sorry, but I fail to see what exactly bothers you. Why would I have to write in the intro why the location is relevant? I added a notice in each section that the location refers to the municipality. The cultural/natural sites are mentioned in the intro. The tentative list never receives much focus in the intro as it is only a list of sites that may be considered in future. How would you change it? --Tone18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maclean25 This article is not the correct venue to discuss what UNESCO classifications mean, that would be better hosted in a more general article and then perhaps linked from the column header here. I see no reason to need to explain the "relevance or significance" of each location, this is the UNESCO listing, once the classification is linked, that, together with the existing description column, more than suffices. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As requested, here is the link. I review each candidate based on its own merits (relative to the criteria and guidelines), not the characteristics of other articles. While I believe that adherence to those sections would improve the article, it is not the basis of my continued oppose (now that I know the delegates' interpretation of that criteria). As I illustrated above, though the nominator (and presumably the supporter BeatlesLedTV) has disagreed, I do not think this is professional standards of writing per FL criteria #1, nor that this meets LEAD (as a whole in terms of summarize the body with appropriate weight and providing context for the chosen relevant or interesting factors). Btw, that link you provided does help clarify the numerals, but why are the numbers in that column, too? Those are some kind of reference numbers or decision numbers(?)...I'm guessing that is the difference between the "data" and the "criteria" column in the next section? maclean (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a peculiar interpretation of what PresN said. Anyway, it's becoming clear we're chasing vapours here, and elsewhere, and I suspect your continued opposition to multiple lists will (like PresN's closure to which you link) eventually be overlooked. Comments need to be actionable, suggestions as to how to improve the list are welcome, rather than just saying "it's not professional enough for me" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The UNESCO number is the reference they use to address the site. So I've amended the heading of the list again to say (Ref; criteria). Presumably now you want to understand the significance of Ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see it as a violation of guidelines for this list to spend the first short paragraph giving the context of what a UNESCO WHSite is and that Montenegro became a country/signatory in 2006. The other option would be to assume that the reader already knows that in the first sentence, only to then turn around and explain it after they've been confused. WP guidelines, MOS or not, are not that rigid.
"a further four on the tentative list" - while the term is fairly obvious, and explained in full later in the list, I'd like to see a few words on what the "tentative list" is here, e.g. "on the tentative list, the official list of sites that may be considered for future submission." or something like that.
The lead is not the place for explaining table columns, if applicable. That would be directly above the table, or in footnotes
Speaking of: "UNESCO data (Ref; criteria)" is hard to parse- it's doing too much for a column header, and also not enough. I'd go with just "UNESCO data", and add a footnote (with {{efn}}) to explain that it has both the UNESCO reference id and the criteria that it fulfills; you need more than a couple words for that, and a footnote gives you all the space you need while not overfocusing a top-of-table note on a single column.
I think "municipality" is a decent, consistent compromise. The Location column is self-evidently the segment of the country in which the site can be found; that some could be more specific than others is true, but you're not going to get down to the exact spot with words in any case.
That said, there is a way to be more specific- List of World Heritage Sites in Germany includes geohack links to the place/region that the site is at; given that you have a map already, that seems like something fairly straightforward to providethat can re-add some specificity without making the rows inconsistent.
Bonus Source Review:
Not much to review here, but a couple issues:
The purpose of the work/website/publisher fields is to list 1) the name of a website/work, and 2) the publisher of that website/work, if its not self-published. That means, therefore, that it should not be displaying a actual url, unless the name of the work has ".com" in itself, which is not the case here. So, it should not be "unesco.org. UNESCO World Heritage Centre", because the name of the site is actually UNESCO World Heritage Centre. So, it should just be "publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre".
You seems to have listed the accessdates for the last few refs as the publish dates; "|date" is for the date the page was published, "|accessdate" is for when you looked at it to cite it. All of your online references should have accessdates, and dates if applicable
Alright, done. I believe I covered all the comments. As for the exact coordinates in the table, this is problematic as not all the sites have a single location. For example, the stećci sites are at two places and the sites in Kotor are all around the bay. The coordinates just point to a single place, which is therefore not accurate. This would, of course, work for places such as buildings. --Tone17:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all looks good. I'm going to skip over the bureaucracy and promote this myself rather than go through TRM's "not-a-support" to make him promote it. --PresN20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
That's the column for order of appointment. The cases with an "=" are when two women received their first cabinet appointment on the same day, which is effectively simultaneous. I don't recall ever seeing any sources which indicate the order in which seals of office are handed out when members of a new cabinet all go to Áras an Uachtaráin to collect their seals of office from the President, and I think any ranking on that basis would be trivialising. So best to count them as as simultaneous. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted [23] for now. I think the unmerged cells have 2 advantages: a) in most cases the first cell's boundaries delineate the vertical scope of the person in, so it is confusing to lose that delineation in the cases of simultaneous appointment; b) merging the cells required removing the incumbency shading from the first column, which makes the incumbency a little less prominent. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Put a centered en dash in spaces that don't have images
Because the surname is the most important part of the name, and of the line, so giving it visual prominence helps the reader. In Ireland, the shortened formal way of referring to a minister is as "Minister <Surname>", e.g. "Minister Zappone" for Katherine Zappone; see in Google News. (When I did raw HTML in the 1990s, I used to use <strong> for purposes like this instead of <b>, so that the markup was not device-dependent; but I don't know how to do this in wikitext. I hope the CSS handles it smartly.) --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That page reports having some connection trouble with 2 links to pages on https://www.independent.ie, which is the website of Ireland's largest-selling daily newspaper, the Irish Independent. The pages load fine in my browser both in a new tab and within the test page you linked. So I have npo idea what the claimed problem is, let alone how I could "fix" it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sections "Current ministers" and "Living former ministers" are both only one line and only contain a summary of the "Name" and "Left office" columns. This successfully establishes the relevance of including that information in the list, but that summary is the purpose the WP:LEAD. It is my view, that those sections should be merged into the lead. maclean (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"a gender-balanced cabinet" how many would that take?
50% obviously, which amounts to 7½ women & 7½ men if the maximum 15 ministers are appointed. I didn't include the number because: a) the sources focus on percentages, and none of them offers an absolute numerical target; b) the cabinet has a max size, not a fixed size. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"imbalance is defended" presumably this should be "has been defended" as it's really just an opinion, right?
What's the strategy for italicising these political terms? Some are, some aren't, I'm unclear on your approach.
They are not directly italicised. Irish language terms have been wrapped in {{lang|ga|text}}, one of whose effects is italicisation. These are arguably loanwords; if that view is taken, the {{lang|ga|text}} can be omitted. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, similar to lead, Constitution and History sections contain a large number of very small paragraphs. This makes for poor aesthetics and slightly clunky reading.
I have expanded the shortest para in the Constitution section[33], and merged 2 short paras in the History section.[34] I also added a little to the "Calls for gender balance:" section.[35], and merged 2 short paras.[36] How does that look now? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No women were members of the" wouldn't this read better as "No members of the ... were women"?
No, it wouldn't read better to split up the key phrase "No women were members" into "No members of the lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit were women". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" Denotes incumbent minister" needs a symbol as well, per MOS:ACCESS.
Incumbency is already noted as text in the "Left office" column, so per WP:COLOR, color is not the only method used to convey important information. I'd be happy to add a symbol if you think the duplication is appropriate; would you like to suggest a symbol? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the markup you've used, I'm not sure the row scopes are working, it's best in any case to use the {{sortname}} template rather than direct table coding here.
Where is age on appointment verified or even discussed? Is it any more relevant than what age the male appointments are made?
It is calculated from verified dates of birth, and included because it is a factor which may be relevant to analysis of the topic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Similar comment on row scopes in the Number of women ministers in each Cabinet table, I'd use {{hs}} for forcing the sort.
Wow. @The Rambling Man: You say absolutely no willingness to address any concerns, but that is blatantly untrue. Shame on you. I have just spent the last 2 hours addressing each of your concerns in turn, most recently creating a new set of templates to add a key to a table, and I intend to continue through the list and address every one of them. I saw your comment only when I added the response about that key. I think what actually you mean is that I don't agree with many of your concerns ... but since they include a request to use a deprecated template and several factual errors (e.g. staggered images, link every linkable object every time) that is unsurprising. I urge you to reconsider your oppose. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I have now finished responding individually to every one of your points. As you can see, I have made changes in response to of your points. In some other cases I have raised questions or MOS/policy issues, and in some cases where I see no MOS/policy issue I disagree with you. I have now spent about 4 hours addressing your concerns. Please will you actually consider what I have written, rather than simply dismissing my responses in toto? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get back to you. I'm having the mother of all bad days, with four out of four of us in the household now struck down by 'flu, I was the last to get it. I apologise if my tone was unduly harsh. We'll work through the remainder in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has moved on significantly since my quick pass, so I'll cap all my comments and endeavour to re-review from scratch in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In every search, "women" is actually more widely used as an adjective than "female". Sure, the Google margins are slim and probably well within the margin of error, but JSTOR shows a more solid margin of 19%. So not only do reliable sources clearly refute your POV that "women" is not an adjective, they appear to prefer "women" to "female".
Your JSTOR numbers are incorrect, and very badly so. The majority of the "1,126" are due to the name of a journal being "Women Politicians and the Media". Take out that search term and the number drops down to 568 as can be seen here. It's not a personal preference, look at any dictionary and you'll find "female, adjective" and "woman, noun". "Of women" can be used as an adjective, but not women. Well, at least in as far as proper English is concerned. That may change as using "women" as an adjective is all the rave nowadays. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Usage can change, and does change. The data above is evidence that in this case, it has changed.
I really dislike this game of excluding results you don't like. Even following your logic, your alternate search is v dodgy, because it assumes that the phrase "women politicians and the media" is used only when referencing the journal. I don't intend to check the hundreds of hits, but the assumption is not plausible.
However, even if someone was to accept this manipulation of the data, the fact remains that even your manipulated data still shows "women politicians" is v widely used in scholarly sources. So the argument that "women politicians" or "women ministers" is unacceptable grammar has clearly been rejected by a wide range of scholars and scholarly publications. Since this is acceptable scholarly usage, why are you trying to exclude it from this encyclopedia? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're asking I'll clarify, I did not exclude "women politicians and the media" from the search, I set the advanced search parameters only to exclude the title of the journal (or tried to). I wanted to see how many of the 1,100+ search results were from the journal, and not based on the article title. In this case something like 600. I have serious doubts that there are too many articles which use the phrase "women politicians and the media". In fact a search for "items titled" "women politicians and the media" only returned 14 hits and only 1 of those was an article (the rest were chapters from a 1996 book by the same name). I'm sure my results on JSTOR are skewed a bit, but not as much as yours were. Do a Ctrl+F search of your results for the phrase "Women politicians and the media". I got 13/25 on the first page (i.e. more than half). Though, as you'll see in my comments, this isn't a sufficient sticking point for me to oppose. I don't like it, but I'm not going to force you at gunpoint to write to my "sensibilities", if you will. Hope that alleviates your concerns. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Citations 7 and 30 you've explained, but RTE News (17) and Irish Examiner (31) have the tag. If you can't find an ISSN for those then okay, if you can please add them too. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent use of "location" in citations, McNamara/Mooney has it but Offen and Galligan/Buckley don't. You're also missing an anchor from all of those references... probably why you have a harv error.
You don't have to add a location for the newspapers, just need to be consistent about where you add them. If you add a location for O'Toole and Dooney 2009, then the tags will disappear because all the books have publisher and location added. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was ugly. The problem is that the gbooks copy of Galligan & Buckley which I was using does not include page numbers in the source. I was using Google's page numbering, but that turned out to be inconsistent, hence the "approximately". So I have removed page numbers from the Galligan & Buckley refs. Note that this had the side-effect of consolidating the Galligan & Buckley refs at #4, so the numbering of all refs after #4 has changed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but chapters doesn't work 'cos Galligan & Buckley is all one chapter in "Politics in the Republic of Ireland", edited by John Coakley, Michael Gallagher. However Galligan & Buckley do use sub-headings, so I will try adding a few of them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
Why does almost the entire lede have citations? I've never reviewed a featured list candidate, but, this is a bit unusual. If everything in the lede needs citations, why don't the second half of paragraph 2 and paragraph 5 not have them. Also, with articles there is a four paragraph limit, does the same limit apply to lists?
I think there are 2 points there
I have tweaked the lede down to 4 paras, by merging para2 with para3[43]
citations in lede: MOS:CITELEAD says "the presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article", and "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Are there any citations there which you consider redundant? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
The oldest living woman former minister is Mary O'Rourke. - Worldwide, or just in Ireland. This ought to be clarified.
I have tweaked that para a few times, so it now [44] reads All but two of the women who have served as ministers since 1918 are still alive. The first Irish woman minister, Constance Markievicz, died in 1927, and the third, Eileen Desmond, died in 2005. Ireland's oldest living woman former minister is Mary O'Rourke.. I hope that is OK. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Above you were talking to TRM about a "gender-balanced cabinet", if there are 15 members to a cabinet then is it even possible to have a "gender-balanced cabinet"? or can you have just partially-filled cabinets?
Yes, there can be partially-filled cabinets. See the Constitution section of the list. As to the question of how to define "gender-balanced cabinet", you'd better ask the National Women's Council of Ireland, who used the phrase[45], or Enda Kenny who said "50:50".[46] I have found no sources which discuss how to define half of fifteen; the mathematical rounding dilemma which troubles you and TRM doesn't seem to be a concern for Irish journalists, scholars or politicians. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
History
The first woman cabinet minister ... - I know you're going to stick steadfast to using "woman" as an adjective, but "female". The same applies to all further instances.
When the Second Dáil assembled in August 1921, Markievicz continued as Minister for Labour,[24] but her post was no longer at cabinet level in the Government of the Second Dáil.[21] Markievicz and other ministers opposed to the Anglo-Irish Treaty resigned from the Government on 9 January 1922.[21][24]
No women were members of the Executive Council of the 1922–1937 Irish Free State. More than 58 years elapsed between Markievicz leaving office and the appointment in December 1979 of Máire Geoghegan-Quinn as the second woman in cabinet. - This seems weirdly ordered to me. Wouldn't the second sentence of the second paragraph flow more naturally if it was placed at the end of the second sentence of the first paragraph. That would read as "Markievicz ... resigned from the Government on 9 January 1922. More than 58 years elapsed between Markievicz leaving office ...". They just seem to follow on from each other much better. You could even rephrase them to really flow: "Markievicz and other ministers opposed to the Anglo-Irish Treaty resigned from the Government on 9 January 1922. More than 58 years elapsed from her resignation to the appointment of Máire Geoghegan-Quinn in December of 1979, the second woman to serve in the cabinet." Or any variation thereof. You could even put "As such, no women were members of the Executive Council of the 1922–1937 Irish Free State." at the end of that paragraph. I'd rephrase it to As such, no members of the Executive Council of the 1922–1937 Irish Free State were women". Since I've effectively changed the whole section I am proposing: When the Second Dáil assembled in August 1921, Markievicz continued as Minister for Labour,[24] but her post was no longer at cabinet level in the Government of the Second Dáil.[21] Markievicz and other ministers opposed to the Anglo-Irish Treaty resigned from the Government on 9 January 1922.[21][24] More than 58 years elapsed from her resignation to the appointment of Máire Geoghegan-Quinn in December of 1979, the second woman to serve in the cabinet. As such, no members of the Executive Council of the 1922–1937 Irish Free State were women. Or any variation thereof.
Sorry, but I find your construction ugly and confusing. It breaks chronological order, and confusingly implies that the lack of women in the Irish Free State was somehow a consequence of Máire Geoghegan-Quinn's appointment 42 years after the Irish Free State's demise. There are two other reasons for my structure: a) the reason for ending the Markievicz para with her resignation is that her pioneering position is discussed in all the sources as a landmark, a key phase in the role of Irish women in politics. It's not appropriate to muddle that up with the v difft era which followed as the the revolutionary era of Irish politics drew to a close. b) the post-revolutionary phase which began in 1922 saw a massive retreat from the feminism of the revolutionary era. Over the next 2 decades, the growing equality of women was reversed on many fronts, such as the banning of contraception in the 1920s, the automatic dismissal of women from the public service when they married, and the removal in the 1937 constitution of formal equality. This was reflected in political participation too (see number of women elected in each Dáil). I didn't want to go into that, because I felt that a brief summary could be misleading and a longer para would be a diversion; but if you like, I can have another go at a sentence or two on why 1922 marked a turning point. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They also found that women in the Irish cabinet are twice as likely to hold a social portfolio (48%) than an economic portfolio (24%). - Eh... meaning? and/or significance?
You're right, that needed context. I have added the following sentence: By contrast, only 17% of men held social portfolios, and 52% held economic or foreign affairs portfolio. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 2014, then Taoiseach ... - the then Taoiseach? I'm not sure if that's the correct way to do it or just the way I'd write it.
... had pledged if re-elected to appoint a cabinet "50:50 on merit, of men and women" I'd put "if re-elected" at the end of the sentence. I.e. "... had pledged to appoint a cabinet "50:50 on merit, of men and women" if re-elected". I feel the need to preempt her by informing her that a predetermined outcome is by definition not based on merit... she could have an all female cabinet if she's appointing solely on merit (or vice versa... but we don't want to talk about that).
Yes, that was a wee bit too terse. I have reworded it[48] as Taoiseach Enda Kenny had pledged that if re-elected he would appoint a cabinet "50:50 on merit". As to the rest, a) Enda Kenny is a man (and twice Mayo man of the year[49][50]), b) some day in a pub, we could have a fun chat about how assumptions that the preponderance of men in positions of power is due to merit rather than rules and structures which block women. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
a) Ah, I've been reading it as Edna. Fair enough, thanks for pointing it out. In which case preempt him. b) I'm sure we could. I'm not really assuming that men are getting more positions of power than women on merit, merely making a point that if it's just about meritocracy there's no reason to assume it'll be 50/50. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but Enda is i) a Mayo man, and ii) a politician ... so he's covering all bases. In both roles, keeping ppl happy sometimes matters more than being right, or even coherent. Like Shrub, Enda has been much misunderestimated; but unlike Shrub, he never developed an invasion fetish. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten about this, and am coming back to it now. I only have a couple new comments, both in the bibliography section.
When referencing a chapter of a book, add chapter page numbers to it. I am referring to Galligan, Yvonne; Buckley, Fiona (2017). "Chapter 9: Women in Politics". In Coakley, John; Gallagher, Michael. Politics in the Republic of Ireland (6th ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1138119451. Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?.
Alphabetical sort error: Coakely should come before Coleman.
No page numbers available for Galligan&Buckley, 'cos I was using the Gbooks preview, which is an ebook with no page numbers. We discussed this above, where my last response[52] was that I would try using section headings. Sorry for not getting back to you on the results of that, which were that a) the sections were too long to be useful pointers, and b) preview was no longer showing me some relevant pages. However, I ended up using some of the book's appendices for other refs (ref#46 & ref#71 in the current revision), and found page numbers on Amazon preview. I will try now to use Amazon preview to get page nums for the Galligan & Buckley refs, and will let you know promptly how that works out. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Damn: Aamazon now seems to be giving me only the Kindle version, and I can't find whatever link was giving me page numbers.
That preview is of the 5th edition' from 2010. It looks like the page numbers I used for refs 46&71 were from a later edition, 'cos they don't tally with the 5th. Wish I knew where that preview I found earlier was.
Anyway, the 5th edition chapter on women is by Galligan only (no Buckley), so it's likely significantly different.
So I reckon buying the book is the best solution, then I can get it all properly referenced. I already had the book on my buy-someday list, 'cos it will be useful for a lot of my studies of Irish politics, so I am just bringing the purchase fwd a bit. And yes, I am a bit dedicated to this article; if promoted, it will be my first featured page ... and even if it isn't promoted I still want to do the best job I can on a topic which is a live political issue. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
* The italics in the Constitution section strike me as unnecessary. I notice that TRM brought this up and as you suggest, I think we should treat them as loanwords.
The last sentence of the Constitution section is unsourced.
@Bilorv: Yes, I didn't find an explicit source for that. However, I think it's self-evident both by observation of each of the 19 careers, and by the trail of explicit sources in the constitution section:
ministers must be members of Dáil or Seanad (source: constitution)
the three senator-ministers listed by O'Toole & Dooney 2009 were men
since none of these women are in the list of senator-ministers, they must have been Teachtaí Dála
I think the word "only" should be removed from "She was only the second woman minister" due to reasons of tone and editorialising.
@Bilorv: Sorry, but I don't think it's any sort of editorial comment. The set of pre-1917 govt ministers is huge, running into at least tens of thousands. A random selection of humans would produce approx a 50:50 distribution by sex ... so it seems to me to be a simple statistical observation to note the fact that Markievicz was only the second instance out of those tens of thousands. That's a long way from the value-judgements conveyed by the words listed in WP:EDITORIAL. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing that this is an extraordinary achievement, but I still think we should let it speak for itself. The source – as far as I can see (which is admittedly only with Google Books) – only cites that she was the second, not that this was a substantial achievement. The fact that there are tens of thousands of pre-1917 government ministers is not part of the source, and this would be synthesis anyway. No-one (I hope) is claiming that politics was/is fair to both sexes, so it's clear that unfortunately there aren't going to be 50% female government ministers pre-1917. — Bilorv(c)(talk)10:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Bilorv, but I am not at all persuaded by that. I still think that "only" is an appropriate emphasis of a statistically significant point. I took a look at usage of the phrase "was only the second" in reliable sources, and it is widespread in Gbooks, Gscholar and JSTOR. I find the 980 Gscholar results particularly helpful. I hope you don't mind me pointing out that your final sentence (no-one (I hope) is claiming that politics was/is fair to both sexes seems in effect to be taking a (presumably intended) POV stance, by dismissing a statistically significant point because it derives from a long-standing injustice which has been normalised. Note that I am not including the word for any POV purpose either way. Just using a common statistical emphasis as in Hooker, A.C. Milner, and Sequeira's observation in the journal Antarctic Science that This was only the second dinosaur to be found in the continent of Antarctica. Somehow, I don't think we'd be having this discusion if the article in question was a list of dinosaurs. So I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I would say exactly the same thing if this was about dinosaurs. I apologise if this is not how you understood my comment, but I meant that while ideally we would have 50% female politicians, it's clear that we don't and never have had and the broader social context (the patriarchy) is the reason we would not model this as a 50:50 coin flip. (And I think this is a huge problem, and the way to solve this is with positive discrimination, changes in education and media etc. but that's another discussion.) I still would prefer the word "only" to be removed but I understand from past interactions on Wikipedia that my interpretation of WP:OR is much more strict than most people's, and I'm not going to oppose over one word, so I'll drop the stick here. — Bilorv(c)(talk)16:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Bilorv. Yes, we do still disagree — I'm not persuaded that an expected rarity is somehow a less suitable case for using the word "only" — but good to know that it's not a stumbling block. In any case, after posting my previous reply, I did some more googling with looser search terms and found two refs to support the word "only": one newspaper, one a book by a historian. I added them to the article,[54] and should have posted a note here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"All cabinets since December 1982 have included at least one woman." – Am I missing a subtle difference between "cabinet" and "government", or is this just an obvious consequence of the previous sentence (in which case, it should be removed)?
Zappone's caption is not a fact mentioned in the body, and therefore unsourced. Are we taking this as self-evident? Since Harney appears in the list under the "Independent" banner, if only midway through a term, I'd rather it was sourced somewhere.
The final paragraph of "Calls for gender balance" mentions the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, giving women the right to stand for election. This information seems like it belongs in the Constitution section.
Hmmm. The Constitution section is explicitly about the 1937 Constitution of Ireland, a written constitution, and its provisions on the makeup of the govt. The 1918 Act is UK statute law which applied to Ireland while Ireland was (in UK theory) part of the UK, but it has never been part of the Irish constitution, and was superseded by the Electoral Act 1923 §50. A UK statute law doesn't really fit into into that. However, it seems to me that I could usefully broaden the Constitution section into something like "Eligibility", which would have 3 main topics: a) revolutionary era 1918–22; ) Irish Irish Free State 1922–37; c) Ireland (since 1937). I will see what I can come up with. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the birth dates and "age on appointment"s in the "List of woman ministers" sourced to? Why are there no dates/ages for Heather Humphreys and Josepha Madigan – are there really no sources for this? (This gives Humphreys' birth date as 14 May 1963 but I don't know whether it's reliable. Our own article on Josepha Madigan gives her birth date as 21 May 1970, though it's unsourced.) If there really aren't reliable sources for these women, I would reluctantly accept "?" in the age column but "(d.o.b. unknown)" strikes me as misleading as it's not like this information has been lost.
Birth dates are based on the Oireachtas members database (e.g. Gemma Hussey), verified with McNamara&Mooney for the first 14 minsters who entered the Oireachtas before the book was published. (The Oireachtas members database is v scholarly; in my occasional correspondence with the Oireachtas research staff over the years about anomalies, I have found that they set high standards of multiple sourcing). To reduce clutter, I have not referenced these dates, but I now think I should do so.
I have found no reliable sources for birth dates of Heather Humphreys and Josepha Madigan. The Oireachtas database used to publish the d.o.b. of every current member, but has not done so for some members first elected in the 2010s. (Presumably there is a privacy opt-out to avoid identity theft). There is no d.o.b. in its entries for Humphreys[59] and Madigan[60]
Dates of appointment are as supplied in the Department of the Taoiseach's History of Government pages, which are referenced in each case.
"Age on appointment" was calculated by me as the difference between those Oireachtas-supplied birth dates and the dates of appointment. AFAICS, date-based calculations are acceptable per the policy WP:CALC and the essay WP:AVRC#Routine_calculations. Should I add a footnote noting how these calculations were done?
The ages on appointment are fine without a footnote, per the policies you cite. The missing dates of birth still irritate me but if this is an omission by the source then there's nothing we can do, assuming you have searched for and failed to find another reliable source with this information. — Bilorv(c)(talk)14:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the omission annoys me too. I spent a few hours searching back when I was building the list, but while there were plausible dates in various places, none of them are reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All three footnotes seem to be giving information not found in the rest of the article and therefore require references.
@Bilorv: I agree in theory, but in practice I don't know how to do that. In an early draft I put some refs in the footnotes, but they weren't recognised. I just tried again, and it still broke, but I saved the edit you can see the problem: [65]. It seems that the mediawiki software won't accept nested <ref> tags. Is there a workaround? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Other women have served outside the cabinet as junior ministers, known until 1978 as Parliamentary Secretaries, and since then as Ministers of State." – This is not mentioned outside the lead and not sourced there.
"Criticism of the imbalance is defended by pointing to male dominance of the Oireachtas (parliament) from which ministers are appointed." – I think this belongs under "Calls for gender balance".
Oops. I was just confused by the reference – not something generally used for information repeated later on (not that this is a problem). — Bilorv(c)(talk)10:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fourth paragraph in the lead should be scrapped entirely. Whether these politicians are still alive as of today is not of long-term importance, or relevance to the history of politics.
@Bilorv: I disagree. It seems to me to be extraordinary that in a set of high office-holder spanning 99 years, >80% are still alive. For the set of ministers as a whole, the figure would be about 35%. However, I think that it was given too much prominence in the lede. It had been in a section of its own until @Maclean25 rightly noted above that the section was too small. I agreed[68] and moved[69] two small sections to the lede. However, in hindsight, I think that was the wrong remedy to the problem which Maclean25 had identified: the all-but-two-still alive point didn't merit its own micro-section, but nor did it deserve the prominence of being in the lede. So I have just moved[70] it to the bottom of the history section. Can you both live with that as a compromise? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine. While I did pointedly mention it was one line long, my point was more that the section was duplicating the purpose of the lede, which is to summarize the body, and the section did just that without introducing any new information. It is now a fitting, but grim, conclusion to the History section. maclean (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the issues above, the list looks wonderful overall, clearly a lot of work has gone into it, and it is certainly on a deserving topic. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone willing to buy a book in order to properly source an article, even in part, deserves applause. Source review passed. The only point of contention is the awkward (to my ears, even though I'm generally descriptivist instead of prescriptivist on the English language) double-noun construction of "women cabinet ministers", but some searching shows that a) it's not an American vs British/Irish thing like I thought, but also b) "women (politician)" is used by many highly-reputable sources, as is the more standardly-grammatical "female (politician)". Which leaves it firmly in the realm of "non-opposable". Also, for fun, note the categories at the bottom of the list: Female government ministers of the Republic of Ireland, Lists of female political office-holders in Ireland... and Lists of women government ministers by nationality. What a mess. So... promoted! --PresN20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
With the lists of US country number one songs from 2000-2006 inclusive having either been promoted or gained multiple supports, I bet you thought 2007 was coming next didn't you? Well instead I thought I would throw you a curveball and bring to FLC some classics from the 1950s. Trivia note: Faron Young, listed herein, was the first singer I ever saw in concert. I got dragged along when my parents went to see him at the Winter Gardens in Margate when I was about 5....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues with the text and the format is consistent with the other articles, but IMHO I just don't see this as surpassing criterion 3b. It's 11 songs with not a lot of supplementary information beyond rewording some contents into prose. Why can't these articles be done as decades like the FLs List of Billboard Hot Rap Songs number-one songs of the 2010s, List of NME number-one singles of the 1960s, and several others? It's very easy to merge the tables, and then there could be a more substantive lead. I know a number of the Billboard lists have articles for every year already, but for this reason I respectfully oppose. Reywas92Talk22:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, guess there isn't much I can do to address the above other than to point out that there are already 30 FLs for number one songs/albums by year, far more than there are by decade..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ten items is the traditional threshold for satisfying criterion 3b, and the level of information and detail provided here could not be replicated in large and clunky decade-by-decade articles. Ten of these articles in one page would be a WP:SIZE violation. The current FLC for Official Classical Singles Chart is a good example of where one article works well, where there are only 2 (plus a few extra weeks on either side) years to cover, this is an example of where it would not with ten full years, and this being one of the sparser years in terms of number of songs needed to be included. The prose reads fine, the only things I saw to do were some hyphen errors, which were easier to fix than to list here. Courcelles (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"more charting singles " in the Hot Country chart only?
"at number one, Johnny Horton returned to the top spot with "The Battle of New Orleans", which spent ten weeks at number one" mildly repetitive, "number one" used twice in a single sentence.
"(pictured in 2002) " I normally put this notes in italics.
Source review passed, promoting. As noted above, the general line in the sand is 10 items for a standalone list, barring obvious reasons to keep a series of lists distinct; this passes that line. --PresN20:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It's been over a year since the last nom, wherein there were no major issues brought up, it just died due to lack of interest. Hoping there's more interest now. Golbez (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Number of governors in the lead needs to be updated to 46
There's no space in the infobox between the salary and year
Note A should be placed after punctuation
Above three done.
Tables can be made to be sortable
They can, but in this case, with the complex nature of the Lt Gov column, I'm not sure it would work well? ... ok so I tried it and I'm impressed at its ability to handle rowspans. Done!
Why have Note L when you place the party of each lieutenant governor anyways?
Accessibility; we can't convey information purely through color.
Gotcha.
The Living former governors section doesn't have any references
Does it need any? Do we ever need to reference that a person is still alive? And if we're referencing their deaths, ... I mean, we have their articles, that do such a better job of handling that. (Also, I'd be 150% fine with removing this section, I don't see the point of it)
I agree that removing it is probably for the best. It would also require a lot of constant updating (which like you said can just be accessed from their individual wiki pages).
"Arkansas's state government " piped to a redirect.
"totaling 56 distinct terms." I don't really follow this terminology, but the table appears to have 46 numbered governors and 11 un-numbered governors.
Fixed; updated unnumbered, removed 'distinct terms', people can math if they need to.
"served only three days, the shortest term overall." care to note why it was so very short?
Added short explainer.
"Governors of the Territory of Arkansas" first para appears to be unreferenced.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
"Athletes from the United States have won more times than any other nationality" should be reworded since the U.S. isn't a nationality ("United States" and "country" or "Americans" and "nationality")
I believe "is" should be changed to "was" in "The 2017 winner of the Best Female Action Sports Athlete ESPY Award is..."; also, can it be added that this is the most recent winner?
two of which went to the surfer Stephanie Gilmore, the only individual to win the award more than once, Jamie Anderson has won the award three times in 2012, 2014 and 2016.
Table
The list of nominees in 2006 to 2010 and 2016 needs to be placed in alphabetical order.
I have performed my usual check on links and refs and have just edited the article directly.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
. Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
