Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2016
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Arshad Warsi has been in the Hindi film industry since 1987 but it was only in 2003 that he won fame for his role in Munna Bhai M.B.B.S.. Since then he has won praise for his work in Lage Raho Munna Bhai, Ishqiya, Jolly LLB, Golmaal series and numerous other comedy films. This list presents all his film credits, awards and nominations. The previous nomination was archived. Skr15081997 (talk) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Yashthepunisher
That's it from me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I just thought linking them everywhere might border OVERLINK, but i agree with your reason. Overall its a nice list and meets the criteria. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support, Yash.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Frankie talk |
|---|
Comments from FrB.TG
-- Frankie talk 22:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all good now. I currently have an FAC here. Will appreciate it if you if leave some comments. -- Frankie talk 12:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I have no other issues. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankie and A Thousand Doors, thanks to both of you.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
The sources are reliable and spot checks have shown the information claimed in the article is correct; no copyvios have been found.
- FN5 should be pp. not p.
- There are a couple of places (FN28, 29) where the article titles have spaces before colons. We are allowed to make minor cosmetic changes to titles, and the spaces should be removed.
– SchroCat (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SchroCat, both done.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2016 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I present to you the County-Designated Highways in Michigan, a unique system of county-maintained roads in the state. I feel that this is one of the most comprehensive and best researched lists and histories of this system available online, or in print, and it's at least worthy of review if not promotion here. Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Dough4872:
- Is it necessary to have two CDH markers in the infobox when one can convey the message?
- The zone map in the infobox looks good, but do you think we can get a map that shows both the zone designations and the routes?
- You should add the total length of the CDH system to the infobox.
- Do we need the abbreviations for Interstate, U.S., and state highways when this article is about the CDH system?
- The total length of the CDH system should also be mentioned in the lead and the prose.
- "As of 2015, no counties in the E zone have assigned roads to the system, and many counties in the other zones have yet to participate", can this be updated for 2016?
- When mentioning the zone borders, maybe should mention national, state, and lake boundaries for people who aren't familiar with the geography of Michigan.
- You should add sources for the Notes in the table.
- You should add some additional historical context in the table for the CDHs that were formerly US or state highways, specifically what years they had the former designation. Dough4872 03:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
- I switched one out for another one.
- @Fredddie: if you can make a map, that would be great. Otherwise, for now, what we have is great and mirrors what MDSH had in their original log of the CDHs, and what was published in the Holland Evening Sentinel article.
- Added.
- Dropped.
- Added.
- Once MDOT publishes the 2016 map, yes, I can change that year reference.
- I'm not sure what you want here, Dough4872. The lakes and various political boundaries don't really factor into the zones because they'd form the outside edges of the state's two peninsulas.
- Added.
- Added.
Imzadi 1979 → 10:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the zone boundaries, I would word it like "The A zone is bordered by I-96 on the north, Indiana and Ohio on the south, Lake Michigan on the west, and US 127 on the east." so the readers aren't left guessing what forms the southern and western border of the A zone boundary. Dough4872 15:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dough4872: added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The list looks good and meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dough4872: added. Imzadi 1979 → 03:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only comment is that it says "as of 2015", so just make sure you update to as of 2016 when you get an updated source. Otherwise it's fine to me! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Zones boundary highways highlighted in red" -> singular zone? Other than that, I couldn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 20:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, got it fixed a little while ago. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
The sources are reliable and spot checks have shown the information claimed in the article is correct; no copyvios have been found. Just one problem with the refs that needs to be sorted:
- I get an error message on FN21 relating to the MDSHT1971 ref
– SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: an errant letter has been removed, which should resolve that. Imzadi 1979 → 09:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. All else looks good so I'll promote in a few hours, when I come back online. – SchroCat (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MPJ-US 03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it matches the format and quality content of a number of other professional wrestling championship featured lists that I have maintained over the years and this would be another article towards a potential Featured Topic I have been working on off and on over the years. After each FL review I have gone through I have made sure to apply feedback from those to future FL candidates including this one. MPJ-US 03:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Comments by Adam Cuerden addressed
|
|---|
|
- Looks good! Support. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Comments by ChrisTheDude addressed
|
|---|
So here is what my research has found
Thanks for clarifying the Damiancito situation. Here's some other comments.......
Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
All Comments by Human3015 addressed
|
|---|
|
- "List" is a "Class" not "type", you can see Category:List-Class articles. Anyway, thanks for doing change in class of this article. List otherwise seems ok to be called as FL. Good work. --Human3015 It will rain 15:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All Comments by ChrisTheDude addressed
|
|---|
Thinks that's it, tweak those and we're all good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Very well done list article. Well organized, well sourced, and informative. I only have a single note. and it's pretty trivial, but the last line of the lead, the phrase "the longest individual reign" seems unclear to me. Perhaps the word continuous is a better choice? But even with that, I vote Support. Onel5969 TT me 03:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review
As far as I can tell with my poor and very rusty Spanish, the sources are reliable. Spot checks have shown the information claimed in the article is correct and no copyvios have been found (again with the proviso that my Spanish isn't good, so I wouldn't spot a copyvio through translation anyway!) Four points for you to address:
- The section Reigns by combined length has no citations
- This section is simply adding up the data in the first table, the first table is totally sourced so I did not see a need to repeat the citations for this section.
- Technically that would fall foul of WP:OR. I suggest you add the G1 and 2 refs to the top of the table (next to the "Wrestler" column heading) to ensure there the information is covered with a source. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically it does not, it falls under "routine calculations" which has it's own subsection. It is simply adding up number of days from the table above. MPJ-US 12:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- But it still needs to carry the citations, regardless of whether they are addedup or not. At the moment you have a whole section without a source, and you ca't claim that it's being supported by citations from other sections. I'm afraid I can't promote it until the section has references to support the information. - SchroCat (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if that's the criteria then G1 and G2 are insufficient, that only covers through 2004. Now I can repeat the citations, not a problem since they're already there, I am just failing to see the reason why a repeated fact has to be cited again. MPJ-US 12:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTEGRITY:
"adding text without clearly placing its source may lead to allegations of original research, of violations of the sourcing policy, and even of plagiarism."
As this is aiming at featured content, it needs to be watertight in what information it contains, and in the formatting that justifies its inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting read, and since the sources are in the article it probably took me less time to add them than to read that link ;-) MPJ-US 12:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is now that if you don't ever return to WP again for some reason, the information is nicely sourced and won't be tagged for FLRC for having a whole section without references because other people don't have the references to check. It's as much about protecting the article as anything else. -SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have future FLCs where I will definitely remember to do that as well to help produce Feature Quality work. Thank you. MPJ-US 13:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTEGRITY:
- G1 and FNs 2 and 3 are from books: you need to include the publishing location
- Found locations for both and added them
- G2 and FN1 have inconsistent date formats with all other dates on the page
- Fixed
- FN 13: we can swap out the shouty caps
- Looking at it I had already half way fixed it, now it's 100% fixed.
– SchroCat (talk) 07:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review, I appreciate it. And considering I work on so much Mexican stuff I have to admit my Spanish is not that great either, I rely heavily on translation tools - which is a pain for magazines but it's all for the love of lucha libre ;-) I added comments to each specific issue. MPJ-US 11:34, 16 February 2016 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): BaldBoris 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination of the 2012 list was promoted in September. This list is very similar, apart from the obvious. BaldBoris 21:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What is going on with references 13 and 14? The text only says "ASO 2013", and the link doesn't seem to go anywhere... (This was also in the 2012 list, so it could be just me not understanding how to read references...)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's using the shortened footnote template. If you are not aware what shortened footnotes are, they're an easier way to cite a paged source. In this case it doesn't make much sense because there's only two pages. The reason I haven't added the pages is because it's an extract from a larger book. BaldBoris 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, that helps. But I think the shortened footnotes are not used properly... In the template page that you linked to, the shortened footnote is "Elk 1972", and the corresponding reference starts with "Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972)", which makes it clear which one is referred to. But in the current FLA, the shortened footnote is "ASO 2013", but the corresponding reference does not even include "ASO" or "2013". (The reference uses the expanded form of "ASO", we should not assume everybody knows what ASO is short for.) A solution could be to put "Amaury Sport Organisation" in the shortened footnote, and include the year 2013 in the long reference, but there might be a better solution.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your confusion, but I'm following the guidelines correctly. See: Template:Sfn#No author name in citation template. BaldBoris 13:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: I've added the appropriate year to the source. BaldBoris 16:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- OK! I see that the abbreviation is indeed allowed, so it look good now.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, that helps. But I think the shortened footnotes are not used properly... In the template page that you linked to, the shortened footnote is "Elk 1972", and the corresponding reference starts with "Elk, Anne (November 16, 1972)", which makes it clear which one is referred to. But in the current FLA, the shortened footnote is "ASO 2013", but the corresponding reference does not even include "ASO" or "2013". (The reference uses the expanded form of "ASO", we should not assume everybody knows what ASO is short for.) A solution could be to put "Amaury Sport Organisation" in the shortened footnote, and include the year 2013 in the long reference, but there might be a better solution.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 08:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's using the shortened footnote template. If you are not aware what shortened footnotes are, they're an easier way to cite a paged source. In this case it doesn't make much sense because there's only two pages. The reason I haven't added the pages is because it's an extract from a larger book. BaldBoris 17:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The list has good sources, and it covers all things it should cover.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 06:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* "
NapHit (talk) 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks very good to me. I've made a couple of small edits. One outstanding concern: the list of victories in the nationalities table adds up to 20, but you have 21 in the total. This is because of the TTT. Perhaps you could deal with this as in the 2015 Vuelta list? Relentlessly (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- NapHit advised me to remove the with (see above), so I'm not sure. Thanks for taking the time give it a look. BaldBoris 18:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "with DvP as the youngest rider" makes it sound like he was acting in a play! Whatever the wording of that sentence, I'm happy to support. Relentlessly (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts:
- Introduction: Very well written, as someone who is completely unfamiliar with the Tour de France. One thing I found confusing was the significance of the yellow jersey... maybe you could mention that the yellow jersey is the "general classification?"
- The opening image has no alt text.
- By starting number: Sorting on the position column is funny. The DNF's are ordered descending by stage, but the HD's are scattered throughout the sort. Maybe sortkeys will help here?
- This is the agreed layout per the recent Grand Tour teams and cyclists FLs. The two HDs are both in the correct position.
- Footer: Footer is a little confusing. What is the reasoning behind having the sources as an H3 under references?
- There's no strict rules on this. In fact MoS advises this style.
If this review is helpful, please take a moment to review my FLC below. ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 19:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted out your first two comments and replied to the others. Thanks. BaldBoris 11:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. In that case, I happily Support (and learned something new!) ~ Matthewrbowker Drop me a note 17:01, 27 January 2016 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a short list but a complete one, on a topic I found particularly intriguing. I feel it meets the standalone criteria as it's niche enough that giving it a full treatment in any conceivable parent article would be unduly focussed. The list is based on other FLs within the subject area, and the text has been copyedited by Baffle gab1978, though any criticism on either is welcome. GRAPPLE X 02:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude
- "Over the title's history, eight championship reigns have been shared between four wrestlers" => "Over the title's history, eight championship reigns were shared between four wrestlers"
- "Rick Rude held the championship the most often, with three title reignsis reigns" - something seems to have gone a bit haywire at the end there......
- "the shortest reign of eight days; while Rude" - either lose the word "while", or change the semi-colon to a comma. Either is correct, but what is currently there is not
- Fixed all three of these. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lex Luger was chosen as the successor to Flair's WCW World Heavyweight Championship......Masahiro Chono was appointed to hold his NWA championship" - Flair did not own either championship, also it doesn't read quite right to say that Chono was appointed champion, because that makes it sound like he was simply awarded it (I realise that in non-kayfabe terms he was technically awarded it, but hopefully you see what I'm getting at). I would re-word this whole bit as "Lex Luger was chosen as the next WCW World Heavyweight Champion. This championship would remain active throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF;[3] Masahiro Chono was chosen to win a tournament designed to crown the next holder of the NWA championship"
- Amended. I found it tricky trying to remain as non-kayfabe as possible without being explanatory to the point of condescension but I think the suggested change works well. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's better now, but "Lex Luger was chosen as the next WCW World Heavyweight Champion, which would eventually be carried throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF" kinda makes it sound like Luger held it for the whole of that time. How about "Lex Luger was chosen as the next holder of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, which would remain the promotion's primary title throughout WCW's existence until the company merged with WWF"? BTW sorry for taking so long to reply, I forgot I'd commented here. My bad :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, it's a volunteer effort after all. I made the suggested fix. GRAPPLE X 09:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "The latter championship became the WCW International World Heavyweight Championship, and was renamed when WCW withdrew its membership of the NWA in September 1993" - I think this vastly over-simplifies the situation, also it sounds like one day the NWA title simply became the International title, for reasons unspecified, and after that WCW withdrew from the NWA. I think you need to say a lot more about how WCW had "control" of the NWA title but got into conflict with the NWA board over who would challenge for it, resulting in WCW withdrawing. You then also need to say that because WCW physically retained the Big Gold Belt they needed to come up with a title for it to represent, so dreamed up the International World title.
- How does "As a result of WCW withdrawing its membership of the NWA in September 1993, Flair's NWA World Heavyweight Championship no longer carried the NWA name, but WCW retained the physical belt they had used to represent the title. This belt became the WCW International Heavyweight Championship." sound? GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ric Flair was the first WCW International World Heavyweight Champion; he already held the title when it was renamed." - the title was not renamed, the two titles are separate. I would re-word this whole bit to "Ric Flair was the first WCW International World Heavyweight Champion; he had defeated Barry Windham for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship in July 1993 and held it at the point when WCW withdrew from the NWA two months later."
- The physical title itself was renamed, was the intention there--as in, the big gold belt now carried a new name, which is why I've referred throughout to a "renaming". Flair didn't win something new, but the strap he carried was now being referred to as a newly-named championship, and although it's seen as having its own lineage the way this was accomplished was simply by the company calling it something new. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "For a brief time, the championship was not officially named" => "For a brief time following WCW's withdrawal, the championship which Flair held was not officially named"
- Reworded. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When sorting by no., the vacated "reign" jumps to the top. It needs to appear in the appropriate place
- Fixed. Now sorts as though it's #7. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- In the table you again refer to the NWA title as being renamed, which didn't happen. The note against the first reign should be changed to "Flair was the reigning NWA World Heavyweight Champion and became the first holder of the new title when WCW withdrew from the NWA"
- As above, this simply refers to the point when the "big gold belt" started being called by the new name. I reworded it to stress that the strap itself was the thing that was renamed though. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Three refs from Wrestlings-Titles.com - I don't think this is the correct title for the site
- Fixed. GRAPPLE X 22:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry, but I just spotted one more thing. "Masahiro Chono was chosen to win a tournament designed to crown the next holder of the NWA championship.[4] As a result of WCW withdrawing its membership of the NWA in September 1993, Flair's NWA World Heavyweight Championship no longer carried the NWA name...." - I think you need an extra sentence here to clarify that Flair returned to WCW and won the NWA title once again, because you talk about Chono winning it in the tourney but then jump to Flair holding it in 1993 and it's doubly confusing for the uninformed given that you previously talked about him holding it in 1991........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to show he had won it again by then. GRAPPLE X 11:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all seems good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise a reasonably neat and tidy piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my comments addressed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback. This is a wrestling article I have not personally edited except for perhaps a minor stylistic fix in the past so I believe I can give unbiased feedback
Comments
- Lead
Two sentences back to back mentions "from 1993 to 1994", the second mention is redundant.- Removed.
- Works for me
The second paragraph in the lead, starting with "The championship originated" seems unclear to me and to me does not adequately explain that WCW made up the title to replace the NWA World Heavyweight title when they withdrew from the NWA.- Tried clarifying it a little further, to show that they needed to do something with the belt itself.
- That's better
- Overview
"This match caused a back injury to Rude, which at the time was thought to be career-ending", makes it sound like Rude returned to wrestling later on, he did not though.- Clarified that he retired from in-ring work.
- Works for me
"now-vacant" should probably be "then-vacant", past tense.- This is past-progressive tense, but I've changed it anyway.
- Lol I have never been past-progressive before ;-)
"The last change of hands booked for the title" - I know what you want to say but this is a clunky sentence I would consider revising. In fact that whole last paragraph does not read well at all with run on sentences and convoluted prose.- I've given it a pass over to trim sentences and be more direct.
- Yeah definitly better
- I think that a final note on the belt design being carried over into the WCW title and later the WWE version might be an interesting final note.
- I'll see if I can turn up something reliable that directly says as much, this is a good idea.
- Table
- Why is there a title over the table? That is not standard for wrestling title lists
- I use the title function for tables consistently; it was recommended in an old FLC as being beneficial to screenreader users.
- That's not in the other wrestling championship lists, part of being a featured list is to be internally consistent with similar lists, this is not though.
- It's a minor difference, the format of the list itself (the same tables, the same content in the tables, etc) is entirely consistent with the overall field of wrestling championships. I'd be reticent to remove something that aids readers just to bump the uniformity from 90% to 100%, to be honest.
- Tracked down the relevant MOS section for this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial#Overview of basics. The table caption (which is the title over it) is considered the highest (A) level of accessibility criteria by Web Content Accessibility Guidelines.
- Hey I respect honesty, and as a big wrestling championship list guy I can honestly say that I don't like the inconsistency, MPJ-US 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair enough, but it is required by the manual of style. GRAPPLE X 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The — under "Days held" sorts odd when you keep clicking the sort arrows - it's between "Less than 1" and 8?- I think the oddity lay with one of the "<1"s, but these now both sort as "0.1" so everything sorts in order.
- Works for me
The notes section should be left aligned- I've had to force this with some div code, which is a bit messy under the hood, but it looks okay.
- Works for me
- The color for the vacated line does not match the MOS, the vacated color is "e3e3e3"
- I matched the row to the exact colour the column and row cells are rather than adding a third colour; anything conveyed by the colour is also conveyed textually so it's within MOS.
- For the Pro Wrestling tables the entire row is a different color, including the — at the beginning. Vacant having the same color as the general number row is misleading, it's calling out something is different. This is also a matter of being internally consistent with other wrestling championship lists.
- Removed the colour, so the vacant reigns are the same as the standard ones; should no longer be calling the row out differently to the others.
- that's actually worse IMO, the dark grey indicates that something out of the ordinary happened, a break in the lineage. MPJ-US 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't that already being accomplished before? GRAPPLE X 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
List of Combined reigns should be sortable- Added sortability; I had originally left it off as both columns were already listed in the same order they would sort regardless but I guess now it can be viewed descending and ascending.
- Works for me
- List of Combined reigns also has a non-standard title
- Again inconsistent with other title lists
- Sources
Are there no other sources for the table than wrestling-titles.com?- I'm sure there are, I just stopped looking after the first one.
- Well thats... erm... reassuring? Not sure.
- I didn't see the need to add additional sources if it was already covered; if you feel that doubling up on the references is necessary I can look for more but everything mentioned is cited.
- Don't mind that, just being a smart all.
The list portion is more or less there, the text needs a little work but nothing that cannot be overcome. MPJ-US 02:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @MPJ-DK: I have responded to or addressed most of your comments; still researching one of them. Thank you for having a look at this. GRAPPLE X 12:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grapple X: - Looked over the article, have a few things I still don't agree with. MPJ-US 00:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review. One minor tweak made, but all sources are reliable, the formatting is good, and spot checks show good use of sources and no close copying. – SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and formatting, etc (no idea on the content – this is an alien field for me! Nice article. – SchroCat (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this has been sitting her too long! Closing, passed. --PresN 19:51, 11 February 2016 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2016 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. It follows the same format as four similar lists which have been recently promoted to FL and one which currently has two supports, and all feedback from those FLCs has been incorporated into this article too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Looks good, I also have a list that could do with a few comments, if you have a spare minute. NapHit (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support meets the criteria, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"Nottinghamshire County Cricket Club is one of the 18 member clubs of the English County Championship - This needs to be sourced- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added another source since the one which you'd added doesn't quite cover the '18' claim. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the current club was established in March or April 1841" - Do we have any other source which clears up the uncertainty?- Not that I can find, but on reflection I don't think the specific month is important so I have removed it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Nottinghamshire team have played first class, List A, or Twenty20 matches at eight different grounds. - Is it worth clarifying that Trent Bridge is the only venue to host T20s till date?- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although the notes look like being obvious claims, I'd suggest you to source them for the sake of reference completeness.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link Hachette UK, BBC, and BBC News accordingly.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (Talk) 17:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, meets the standards. —Vensatry (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
That's it from me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Note/Hint/etc. - I have my own FLC Candidate Mexican National Lightweight Championship and I figured giving is the best way of getting feedback.
Comments
- Lead
- "and has competed in first-class cricket from 1841" - Should this be "since 1941" since it looks like they still compete in first-class cricket?? same with List A and Twenty20??
- No, 1841 is the correct date, Notts have competed in first class cricket from 1841 to the present day, not sure what the confusion is....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry "1941" was a typo on my part. When I read the "From 1841" I read it as past tense, that they no longer played first-class cricket, but that is not the case from the table. MPJ-US 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No, 1841 is the correct date, Notts have competed in first class cricket from 1841 to the present day, not sure what the confusion is....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Table
- Confused by the sort order of "no other matches to date" what is the sort criteria?
- Where they have only played one match at a given venue, "no other matches to date" sorts as the date of that match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright that works for me. MPJ-US 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Where they have only played one match at a given venue, "no other matches to date" sorts as the date of that match -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At first glance I thought that Trent Bridge was no longer used either since it has a date in "last", technically what you have is the "most recent", I don't know if it would be worth noting the difference for that Cricket ground?
- Well, technically speaking that was the last game at the ground until the next one.... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Remaining sorting etc. looks good.
- Sources
- CrickeArchive is cited repeatedly, is that a Reliable source?
- Absolutely. It is edited by Philip Bailey, author of "The Who's Who of Cricketers", chief statistician and records compiler for "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack", and generally regarded as one of the pre-eminent cricket statisticians of his generation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I am good with that.
- Absolutely. It is edited by Philip Bailey, author of "The Who's Who of Cricketers", chief statistician and records compiler for "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack", and generally regarded as one of the pre-eminent cricket statisticians of his generation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The other sources look good to me.
- Notes
Nothing in the notes are referenced in the lead - I did not realize that the cricket grounds had hosted other teams etc. to ensure the lead covers all major aspects would it be worth putting in a sentence or two around this? Not a deal breaker, just from doing GA reviews the "all major aspects" criteria is something I've been paying attention to.
- Added a sentence in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good list, only minor comments that I am sure can be addressed or explained, MPJ-US 01:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the added sentence I think we've got it all covered for me. Support MPJ-US 21:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source Check by PresN
- Formatting looks good, though ref 30 is missing isbn (978-1-119-99656-9)
- Consider archiving your online refs, so that they don't get messed up by linkrot
- Checked refs 2, 6, 16, 30 - all good
- Source check- passed --PresN 19:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Bharatiya29 14:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments
If you have time then please review List of Ranji Trophy triple centuries. Bharatiya29 17:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Bharatiya29 14:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-sourced, accurate, table works, similar standard to the other FL on County cricket grounds. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting! --PresN 19:55, 11 February 2016 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC), Mr.Apples2010[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria, and Lomu is the first superstar rugby player. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support great work! NapHit (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Hopefully someone else can keep it going to FL! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: Sole image on the list was originally licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 at the time of its upload on June 23, 2009. This was verified by a bot on June 26, 2009. However, it has since been changed to CC BY-NC-SA 2.0, which is not allowed on the Commons. Per copyright laws, as detailed on the Commons, "once a work has been made available under a given license, the copyright holder cannot legally change or revoke the license on copies of that work." As such, the image remains valid for use on Wikipedia.
- Support – Prose covers the necessary information appropriately and succinctly. No issues with table formatting. Nicely done, TRM. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
|---|
Very good list, only minor concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I now support this nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Parutakupiu
I have performed a full copyediting of the lead, and during this process I was bold and updated Lomu's personal records, which did not account the most recent World Cup edition. According to the sources provided, Lomu is now the sixth best New Zealand try scorer (passed by Savea) and all-time eighteenth (or seventeenth, if one considers least number of matches). Also, his overall and single-tournament World Cup record of 15 and 8 tries have both been matched by Bryan Habana as of the 2015 tournament.
As for the rest of the list, here are my comments:
- I would order the table columns in this way: 1) Try, 2) Date, 3) Opposing team, 4) Score, 5) Competition, 6) Venue, 7) Location, 8) Ref.
- As you can notice in the previous point, I would discard the "Result" column (therefore, making the Key section unnecessary) and would state instead, in a sentence before the table, that New Zealand's score is listed first in "Score" column.
— Parutakupiu (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Parutakupiu, thanks, done. Please don't ask me to reorganise the columns again... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Haha, can't promise you that, The Rambling Man! Parutakupiu (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| ;Source review by Cowlibob
List uses reliable sources such ESPN, BBC News, Sky Sports, The Guardian. Dates are in correct format. Some of the BBC links are 301 redirects but lead to the page with the information present. Spotchecks of sources don't reveal copyvio, plagiarism or lack of verification. As there are only thirty references, it might be a good idea to archive them to preserve them for the future.
Cowlibob (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Source review passed. Cowlibob (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2016 (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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Charlize Theron is a South African-American actress noted for roles such as a serial killer in Monster (2003), a miner fighting sexual harassment in North Country (2005), and more recently as rebel soldier Imperator Furiosa in Mad Max: Fury Road (2015). Here's a hopefully comprehensive rundown of her appearances thus far, as usual look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
contentComments
NapHit (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support meets the criteria. Good work NapHit (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment
Not much. Very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I think the 5th ref should be replaced with a better source.
- The lead section is very good.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skr15081997: I unfortunately couldn't find a different source but in the interview she does specify that she spent time with a therapist to "practice schizophrenia" for the role. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: OK, I have added full citation for that ref.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Skr15081997: I unfortunately couldn't find a different source but in the interview she does specify that she spent time with a therapist to "practice schizophrenia" for the role. Cowlibob (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support A solid filmography, no issues to report. Miyagawa (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review: Formatting is as per MoS, the references are reliable, no dead links and spot checks reveals no evidence of plagiarism or close copying. An issue regarding the accuracy of a source:
- Source 18 does not specify the director of 2 Days in Valley.
- I'm not happy with this and other recent reviews: the formatting is not per MoS, and this review should be ignored. - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- The comment above re FN18 stands
- There is some inconsistency in the date formats, with the formats "1 November 2015" and "November 1, 2015" used
- You don't need "(AMPAS)" in two refs
- Books need a location for the publisher (FN20)
- You don't need a full date in FN20, just the year of publication
- There's an unwanted space in FN23 – "The Astronaut s Wife"
- FN12 should be "British Academy of Film and Television Arts", not "BAFTAs".
– SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @SchroCat: Thanks for the source review. Dealt with the points above. Cowlibob (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2016 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
