Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FL criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FLC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at Featured list candidates and Peer review at the same time. Users should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split FL candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). One of the FL directors, either Dabomb87, Giants2008 or The Rambling Man, determines the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After the 10-day period has passed, a director will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects – |
Featured list tools:
|
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.
|
Nominations
1951 Asian Games medal table
- Nominator(s): Bill william comptonTalk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a my second nomination for FL which is again of Asian Games related medal table [first one is still in process]. It is fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by me, thanks. --Bill william comptonTalk 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest the list and accompanying prose are too short in content to appropriately designate this as "featured". I've previously been advised of an unwritten but generally accepted lower limit of 10 items. StrPby (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I appreciate your comment, but I didn't find any such thing on FLC; that there should be at least 10 items on list, moreover, this is a medal table, static in nature, which I can't change; if you've any better idea to expand it then please tell me. I'd agree on prose, but I don't know what else to add here. I could try to add more information, but that would be either irrelevant or should be covered within a main article. Denying this list for featured status because it contain less number of items would be gratuitous. --Bill william comptonTalk 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- The earlier discussion where this came up was here. Since you agree that the prose is lacking, I will formally oppose based on criterion 3(b) of WP:WIAFL, specifically "In length and/or topic, it ... could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." In this case, given what little there is here, I would say there is no argument for a stand-alone medal table article. This is not an oppose based on the number of items in the list, but the fact that both the list and accompanying description would easily (and "reasonably") be included in the 1951 Asian Games article without needing to be split out. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I appreciate your comment, but I didn't find any such thing on FLC; that there should be at least 10 items on list, moreover, this is a medal table, static in nature, which I can't change; if you've any better idea to expand it then please tell me. I'd agree on prose, but I don't know what else to add here. I could try to add more information, but that would be either irrelevant or should be covered within a main article. Denying this list for featured status because it contain less number of items would be gratuitous. --Bill william comptonTalk 13:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- But how it could be possible that any article of list class could never be good enough to be a featured part of an encyclopedia. If you think that prose need more work then in spite of directly opposing it you may mention it as your concern and I could work on that and I'll try my best to make it fit for 3(b) of FLC. Also shouldn't be a main thrust of the process (nomination) is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria and if you've noticed after your first comment I've already started working on prose. If 1896 Summer Olympics medal table could be a featured list then why not this one. So, please make comments and ask for changes, but don't just oppose it because you think it can never be a stand alone list; give me some time to resolve your comment. --Bill william comptonTalk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Essentially a 3b oppose is based on the belief that the article should not be a part of the encyclopaedia, at least as its own article. Courcelles 18:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- But how it could be possible that any article of list class could never be good enough to be a featured part of an encyclopedia. If you think that prose need more work then in spite of directly opposing it you may mention it as your concern and I could work on that and I'll try my best to make it fit for 3(b) of FLC. Also shouldn't be a main thrust of the process (nomination) is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria and if you've noticed after your first comment I've already started working on prose. If 1896 Summer Olympics medal table could be a featured list then why not this one. So, please make comments and ask for changes, but don't just oppose it because you think it can never be a stand alone list; give me some time to resolve your comment. --Bill william comptonTalk 15:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
-
Rosenborg BK in Europe
Rosenborg is the most successful football team in Europe from Norway, particularly during the late 1990s and 2000s. The following list presents Rosenborg's achievements and matches in UEFA tournaments and hopefully also meets the criteria for a featured list. Arsenikk (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments some openers...
I'll need another complete run-through but this is a start for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
List of Phoenix Suns seasons
I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. I recently worked on the Clippers' list, so I used it as a template to improve the Suns' list. Comments/Questions/Criticism are welcome! Cheetah (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
- " In 2004, Nash signed with the Suns and led..." he re-signed then? No, maybe not, perhaps put the MVP thing after Nash's sentence...
- I first mentioned that he got the MVP award, then explained why he got it. Do you still want me to mention the MVP award later in the paragraph?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think it reads okay on a re-visit, no action required. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I first mentioned that he got the MVP award, then explained why he got it. Do you still want me to mention the MVP award later in the paragraph?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Amare Stoudamire" -> Amar'e (per our article).
- done...he won that award in 2003 while he was known as Amare. I changed it to Amar'e, but shouldn't it be Amare?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I guess we go with whatever you're using in the list to reliably source his name if there's a conflict... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- done...he won that award in 2003 while he was known as Amare. I changed it to Amar'e, but shouldn't it be Amare?--Cheetah (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No need for bold text in the all-time records table.
- done...are you sure about that? It's a total of the first two rows.
- I suppose that's fair enough being bold, it's just the sheer volume of text being bold looks pretty naff. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- done...are you sure about that? It's a total of the first two rows.
- Comments
- "win-loss" should be "win–loss" (endash rather than hyphen, as it is a disjunction).
- First you use the term "began", but then change to "have made". Stick to one form.
- I find the first sentence of the second paragraph too long.
- I may be that this is really important somehow (I do not follow basketball or North American sports in general), but it seems as very trivial to mention from where Adams was drafted.
- Perhaps mention 1976 when the first final is first discussed in the prose.
- Also consider linking the finals the first time they are mentioned in the prose.
- Parts of the lead are lacking references.
- Win% = winning percentage should be in the key.
- I was under the impression that acronyms should not be small, but I cannot find it in the MOS today. Perhaps someone else can confirm this?
- Images check out fine.
- Perhaps link 'Steve Nash' in the image caption.
Overall looks good. Arsenikk (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Grammy Award for Best Remixed Recording, Non-Classical
This is one of the few categories not being altered next year. I have not included the original artists of songs, as the prize is awarded to remixers only, but lemme know what you think. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Dab/EL check - There are no dab links but there is one dead link. GamerPro64 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Looks great! I would recommend "commanding" the Nationality column to be wide enough to accommodate the length of the widest entry (UK) so that is does not wrap to a second line. I think I used 125px before? (Edit: For accessibility purposes, you might want to look at the scope/width formatting on the Jazz Fusion list.) --Another Believer (Talk) 13:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, done. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
List of international cricket centuries by Andrew Strauss
Another international cricket centuries list: this one for England's current captain Andrew Strauss. A few impressive achievements, not least his three high scores in ODI cricket. Don't understand why people want him to retire from it! Based on those that have come before. Harrias talk 16:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- Not sure if a non-expert will understand "opening batsman".
- "on 19 occasions in Test cricket, and 6 times " I know you're following MOSNUM here, I'd prefer it the other way round, "nineteen occasions... six times.." but it's my own personal pref so no major trauma.
- I like the quote but what's a "tyro"?!
- Link Wisden as the other Wisden link goes straight to the COTY article.
- "he was run out on 83 by Nasser Hussain" interesting nuance of cricket. Most would expect the run out to be by an opposition player. Can we rephrase this to reflect that it was (I assume) a poor decision to run (by someone!) which ended up in Strauss being run out?
- "who he went on to replace in " can we be clear here, i.e. "who Strauss went on to replace"?
- "match of the series against the West Indies" is there a link to that series? Same for the following Eng series vs SA.
- You mention Lord's being his home ground, but on the second time of mentioning it, any reason for that?
- I think we have an article for England captains somewhere you could link to? (for "as England captain in 2009")
- "during an Ashes series" could link the generic "The Ashes" here.
- "He scored his second century the following season, scoring 152..." don't repeat "scor..." here, perhaps just "... season, with 152.."?
- "third highest total " would have thought that should be third-highest.
- " his batting temperament suited itself to" - "his batting temperament was suited to..."
- "he was named Man of the match." -> "named man of..."
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
List of Vuelta a España general classification winners
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this list is close to featured list, it is similar to the already featured Tour de France and up for nomination Giro d'Italia lists and will hopefully form part of a featured topic. Thanks in advance for your comments NapHit (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
- I checked this, and fixed some inaccuracies in the lead. Did not get to checking the table, but sources look good. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I would have said the semicolon on the first line should be a comma.
- There isn't a semi-colon on the first line assuming your talking about the lead? NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- done NapHit (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Is the 1941 edition the only which also took place in countries "with close proximity"? Particularly if this is a recurring phenomena, which countries are these?
- Someone had changed the sentence from what it originally meant, rectified that issue. Regarding the countries, the only one I can find a reference for is the Netherlands which is not close enough to Spain to warrant being put in the lead. See TRM's comment above. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The second paragraph of the lead is without references.
- In the history section there are some very short sentences, such as "He won his second Vuelta in 1983." that perhaps could be merged with adjacent sentences.
- I'm not sure the prose would read better if I did this, as I would end up saying "so and so won this year, the following year" over and over again which is not good practice, so I think its fine. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- The history section seems completely referenced except for the last statement of the third paragraph.
- To me it seems odd to have rows for years without a competition.
- Each to their own I suppose, I personally think it would be odd not to include them, as it conveys to the reader clearly what years the event did not take place. It would look odd in my opinion if the table jumped from 1951 to 1955 without explanation. NapHit (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Linking
yearscountries in the table and elsewhere is overlinking.
- The countries are only linked in the table as far as I'm aware apart from Spain obviously. I was of the impression that sortable tables were allowed to overlink and this has not come up in any candidacy for a while. Unless policy has changed I'm not sure if there is an issue. NapHit (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a difference between overlinking and repeatlinking. Tables have an exception from the MOS guideline of only the first occurrence being linked, i.e. tables can have the same link repeated in multiple rows. However, tables do not have an exception from the guideline of overlinking, which involves linking to terms deemed to general to serve a purpose, for which countries are specifically mentioned. More about this at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking). Arsenikk (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- The "stage wins" column sorts oddly for me. In an increasing sort, it sorts zero, emdashes, larger numbers.
- Again, when sorting by "cyclist", 'not contested' is sorted in the middle under NOT..
- I tried to fix this, unfortunately as there is a cyclist whose last name starts with Z I can't get the not contested bit to sort after him so I'm afraid there is not much I can do unless there is a way around that issue. NapHit (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think my last edit solved this.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- What order is used to display the multiple winners with the same number of wins? It does not seem to be sorter either by year or surname.
- Image licenses look good.
Arsenikk (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Grammy Award for Best Jazz Fusion Performance
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles other Grammy lists with the highly-sought-after star in the top right corner. Thanks, as always, to reviewers! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support can't find anything wrong, but then again I've looked at so many of these types of lists, I'd like to hope I wouldn't! Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support The only wee issue I see is "No female artists were nominated in 1991, the final year the award was presented," as I don't really see the significance of this year and not many (any?) other female artists nominated. Otherwise, very nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support everything ok.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 08:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
List of human characters in Sesame Street
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a high-quality list with lots of good research. I've worked hard at making this list informative and fun to read, kinda like The Show itself. Christine (talk) 13:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- Restarting nomination, previous comments can be seen here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support like I did before.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - what does a "blank" cell mean in the Actor column? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- It means that no source was found about who played the particular character. The source for Buddy and Jim, for example, is the Old School DVD, which does not list the actors' names. In other words, there's a source for the characters, but nothing was found that stated who played them. Clear as mud? Christine (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support – All of my comments were addressed before the restart. Perhaps dashes for the blank actor cells should be considered if that is thought to be a problem, but I can't get too fussy about it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (H)
The next Phillies roster list, following after the promotion of "G". Comments addressed as always. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Support job done again, good stuff! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support plus a couple of questions
- Why don't you write 2010-present for active players instead of 2010-2011? When I see 2011, I first assume that he's done with the Phillies in 2011. On second thought only, I start checking what the italics are for. Maybe since in NBA-related articles, we write present, that's why I assume this.
- "Present" would imply that the player is on the roster. Not all players who have made a 2011 appearance are on the roster; hence, the use of 2011 instead of present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, since you're using 2011 and not present, it means that Roy Hallaway, for example, made an appearance in the 2011 season, but is not currently on the roster?--Cheetah (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, if you're talking about Roy Halladay. The "2011" indicates that he has appeared for the Phillies in 2011, and the blue text and italics indicate that he is currently on the roster. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the problem I see. The "2011" indicates that he played his last game for the Phillies and is not on the roster anymore. THEN I see the blue background and italics and get confused because I see a contradiction. As a wikipedian, I am used to seeing the word "present" for the players who are actively playing for their teams.--Cheetah (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for one, not all Wikipedia sports articles are alike. For two, there is no contradiction because 2011 does not indicate the last game; it doesn't say that anywhere (and in any case, the last game may have been the game that the team last played, so it's still correct). Lastly, "present" requires constant updating; if a player makes his first 2011 appearance, then it can stay the same for the entire year and this is more stable than changing back and forth all the time. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not only in sports-related articles, it's also in biographical articles that in year ranges first year means the beginning and the second year means the ending. By your logic, we should write in the Roy Halladay article 1977-2011 because he's breathing in 2011.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, by my logic, his infobox should read "2010-2011", with which there would be no problem. You've falsified my argument by implying that it should apply to birth and death dates, which I never said and disagree with. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not implying anything, I am stating that universally whenever there is a year range like "2010-2011" or "1888-1999", the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end. That's it.--Cheetah (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- There are exceptions to every rule, so "universally" is misleading. And even so, if "the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end", 2011 currently is the end because this is the last year the players have currently played for the team. I'm not going to be changing to present because of the horrible complications it creates during the offseason. — KV5 • Talk • 11:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not implying anything, I am stating that universally whenever there is a year range like "2010-2011" or "1888-1999", the first year means the beginning and the last year means the end. That's it.--Cheetah (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, by my logic, his infobox should read "2010-2011", with which there would be no problem. You've falsified my argument by implying that it should apply to birth and death dates, which I never said and disagree with. — KV5 • Talk • 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's not only in sports-related articles, it's also in biographical articles that in year ranges first year means the beginning and the second year means the ending. By your logic, we should write in the Roy Halladay article 1977-2011 because he's breathing in 2011.--Cheetah (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, for one, not all Wikipedia sports articles are alike. For two, there is no contradiction because 2011 does not indicate the last game; it doesn't say that anywhere (and in any case, the last game may have been the game that the team last played, so it's still correct). Lastly, "present" requires constant updating; if a player makes his first 2011 appearance, then it can stay the same for the entire year and this is more stable than changing back and forth all the time. — KV5 • Talk • 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the problem I see. The "2011" indicates that he played his last game for the Phillies and is not on the roster anymore. THEN I see the blue background and italics and get confused because I see a contradiction. As a wikipedian, I am used to seeing the word "present" for the players who are actively playing for their teams.--Cheetah (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, if you're talking about Roy Halladay. The "2011" indicates that he has appeared for the Phillies in 2011, and the blue text and italics indicate that he is currently on the roster. — KV5 • Talk • 23:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- So, since you're using 2011 and not present, it means that Roy Hallaway, for example, made an appearance in the 2011 season, but is not currently on the roster?--Cheetah (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Present" would imply that the player is on the roster. Not all players who have made a 2011 appearance are on the roster; hence, the use of 2011 instead of present. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
For pitcher statistics, you have "record, earned run average, strikeouts". For two pitchers, you have "earned run average, walks, innings pitched". What I'm asking is why not write "innings pitched, earned run average, walks" for those two pitchers. Innings pitched implies that those two pitchers lack a win-loss record; walks imply lack of strikeouts. This way, the order is maintained. I know it's a huge nitpicking on my part, but I believe it would be neater.
- Why don't you write 2010-present for active players instead of 2010-2011? When I see 2011, I first assume that he's done with the Phillies in 2011. On second thought only, I start checking what the italics are for. Maybe since in NBA-related articles, we write present, that's why I assume this.
--Cheetah (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- I really don't think that distinction is big enough to worry about, especially since it means going back to pick apart all the previously promoted lists and then adding yet another thing to check before future FLCs. The order of the statistics isn't really that important, as long as it gets the message across. — KV5 • Talk • 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Support – Everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
List of University of the Philippines Los Baños people
- Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it sufficiently lists notable UPLB people. Moray An Par (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick comments on a first glance.
- My browser makes the images appear first and then the tables creating masses of white space. I'm using Safari for Mac.
- "director" is a disambiguation link.
- Lead is a little short, could use bulking up a bit in my opinion.
- As of 2009 in the lead. It's now heading to mid-2011. Can we update that?
- Put (UPLB) after the first use of the full title in the lead.
- Is this list complete? I doubt it so perhaps consider using the {{incomplete list}} template.
- "Sergio Osmeña III" has a discipline of a very wide horizontal line. This should just be an en/em-dash and should be noted as to why.
- "Agribusiness management" or "Agribusiness Management"? Probably the former. What does that mean?
- Avoid superscripts, so 20th should just be 20th.
- Don't think you need to link "singer".
- Or Theater actor.
- Or spider.
- or president...
- When did LLD become a "relationship"?
- Something odd going on with the image of Sirindhorn. Some red link text, comments to the left of the main image... not sure what that's all about, but it needs solving.
- "has had 7 chancellors." seven. Are they notable? If not, why are they in the list? If so, why aren't they linked to articles (or red-linked)?
- Names should sort using the {{sortname}} template so they use surname rather than first name.
- Use en-dash in year ranges, e.g. refs 36 & 37 need to be 1895–1986 not 1895-1986 or 1895 -1986.
- That applies to chapter ranges too (e.g. refs 41, 42).
- Ref 45 has a bare URL.
- About.com is not reliable. I'm not sure about a number of the sources you use, but I don't have time now to go into detail. Perhaps if you fix up the above, I'll see what I can do on a ref check.
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have addressed the above concerns. I'll find a replacement for the About.com reference. I personally believe that UPLB chancellors fail the WP:Professor test, and are not independently notable. I'll integrate Emil Q. Javier into the faculty list. I'll also find an update summa cum laude list. As for the lead, I based it here List of Wilfrid Laurier University people. What other information would you like mentioned? I'll do these when I get the time later.
- I think the list is sufficiently comprehensive, at least, according to Wikipedia articles. I came up with that list by searching all BLPs mentioning UPLB. I just then searched outside references to confirm it. But that doesn't mean that that's all the notable people from UPLB. I'll search alumni forums for list of other alumni. Maybe I'll find a number who are notable, and have Wikipedia articles. Moray An Par (talk) 05:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. I have included additional personalities in the list but I also realize that these must not be all. So I added {{dynamic list}} at the top. What other concerns are there that I still have not addressed? Moray An Par (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Wale discography
- Nominator(s): Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because its lead section shows great writing skills, the lead section is well written and describes what the article is about, the article is easy to navigate, the article follows all the appropriate Manuel of Styles, and the article has visual appeal Michael Jester (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- What makes the mixtapes notable enough for inclusion? Are they official releases? What label were they put out by? Have they received comprehensive coverage in reliable sources? The fact they exist isn't reslly enough to warrant inclusion. The individual article pages didn't help ascertain any of this. They either have zero references or very little unreliable ones.
- Self Made Vol. 1 says it was released on May 24, 2011.. so it hasn't been released yet, doesn't really exist, and doesn't belong on a page listing his releases. Also, it's not referenced
- Why are the references for chart positions in the Singles' "As featured artist" table next to the positions, and not in the header, which is the accepted standard for discogs?
- References should have publication dates where available
- What makes http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.13318/title.wale-confirms-move-to-rick-ross-maybach-music-group a WP:Reliable source?
- What makes the blog http://www.2dopeboyz.com/2008/06/20/wale-paint-a-picture-mixtape-req/ a RS?
- What makes the blog http://www.getrightmusic.com/2008/05/30/wale-mixtape-about-nothing/ a RS?
- Or any of the following:
-
- http://www.5starhiphop.com/2010/wale-mixtape/ ?
- http://vibesource.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/wale-hate-is-the-new-love-mixtape/ ?
- http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2010/08/04/wales-second-seinfeld-themed-mixtape-more-about-nothing-somehow-better-than-the-first ?
- http://hiphop-n-more.com/2011/04/maybach-music-group-presents-self-made-vol-1-album-cover/ ?
- http://www.musicvideocast.com/wale-waledance-music-video.html ?
- http://www.prefixmag.com/media/wale/family-affair-video/29451/ ?
- http://www.prohiphop.com/2009/11/ucb-pat-your-weave-music-video-ft-wale.html ?
- Refs 19 through 23 need correct attribution
- "kazeem" with a K
- names of websites, broadcasters, etc (Myspace, MTV, Ultratop, Vevo) should not be in italics in references. Only the titles of magazines, newspapers, books, journals, etc.
- Prose in the Lede isn't a bit iffy in places. The reader shouldn't have to read the first paragraph to understand the second (It begins "The next year", requiring the reader to read the first to figure out what year.) Just start it with "In 2008"
- What is a "hometown hit"?? Please don't say it got a couple of spins on some local radio station and was popular with clubbers and hip iPod wearing high-schoolers. Is it "Dig Dug" (Shake It) as the text says, or "Dig Dug (Shake It)"?
- Is Maybach Music Group a record label or musical group? The prose and the table don't make it clear.
Overall there's a lot of very dodgy-referenced stuff here, especially the mixtapes. I wonder, if with all the non-notable stuff removed, this wouldn't be better placed at Wale#Discography. 1 album, 7 singles, and a few more music videos..? Seems to fail Criterion 3(b) as an unnecessary fork. All that plus the poor Lede means I have to Oppose at this time. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The mixtapes are official released. Also, I fixed most of the references problems. I still have to find a couple more, though.
- That didn't answer my original question. Anyone can self-publish a mix tape. What makes these notable enough for inclusion? Where have they received comprehensive third party coverage? Your references just prove they exist, which I'm not disputing. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Still showing "Self Made Vol 1", which hasn't been released yet. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- So after some research, I decided that his most recent mixtape, More About Nothing, is probably the only one that is worth including. Does this mean the others should be taken out of the lead section? I also took out the compilation album. Michael Jester (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
List of tallest buildings in Austin
- Nominator(s): TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it has been worked on for a while and it appears to meet all of the requirements of an FL article. I have checked the article multiple times, and it has been checked with the criteria as well. The list is modeled after the already FL status List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque, which in turn is modeled after a number of other featured lists. When you state any concerns/suggestions, please do so in an understanding fashion, which would be simple, yet understanding and comprehensive. As always, your comments will help this article, and I will do my best to fix your concerns if any. Remember to respond positively and with constructive criticism. Also remember that the use of graphics is discouraged. Again, thank you for your comments. TheAustinMan (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Matthewedwards (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments Nice to see one of these again. Just this week I was thinking it's been a while
Neutral for now. Not too bad, just a bit of cleanup. I'm assuming the refs are all okay as they have been in previous tall building lists. Haven't checked the image Matthewedwards : Chat 05:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I don't know how to map images, but I'll give you the info. I'll provide you wikilinks, if any, so you can check with them to see if they match. You can also search them up on Wiki Commons. I'll go left to right with the descriptions below:
TheAustinMan (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
|
- Did the first image map, was pretty easy, but check that I did it all correctly, especially 100 Congress which I'm not sure I identified correctly. I'll let you identify each building in the caption (I'm pretty sure screenreaders don't work on image maps but you'd have to check with WT:ACCESS for confirmation). The caption shouldn't be too hard to find; it's in the Image: line just like a normal image caption would be. Just don't wrap it in square brackets or you'll break the template. Also suggest identifying the buildings on the file description page at Commons as most people will want to click the image to get a larger view. It's past midnight now so I'll do the nighttime one tomorrow. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and I forced the thumbs to 400px. I'm sure there's a style guideline orimage use policy somewhere that says don't force image sizes, but oh well.. there's no point mapping it if it's too small to be seen. Matthewedwards : Chat 07:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I checked with WT:ACCESS, so an answer will probably come in. I'll put it on here if the question has been answered. :) TheAustinMan (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- OK. Meanwhile I've mapped the second photo. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment At the risk of giving contrary advice, I don't think "56 floors" or "21 skyscrapers" need non-breaking spaces ( ). Nor do I think there is any policy or guideline that suggests that non-breaking spaces should be used in such cases. I would also expect per WP:ORDINAL that "more than 30" would be preferred (although I don't find "more than thirty" to be poor style, it does contradict our guidelines). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Isn't it that words above ten that can be spelled out as one or two words should be? Like thirty and thirty-one are ok but three-hundred-and-sixty two aren't? Figures in prose just looks jarring to me, but it's not a huge deal either way. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- From WP:ORDINAL: As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words. But it's not a big deal for me either. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- All the images
except the firsthave alt text, and the alt text given is reasonable (remember that screen readers will hear the alt text and then the caption, so we don't them to be too duplicative). --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I mapped the image last night and may have removed the alt text. I'm not sure if it works with mapping, though. The guys at WT:ACCESS will let us know. Matthewedwards : Chat 16:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Oh, I added the alt text. Seems like it works. I just need some old computer with dial-up to see if the alt text shows up :D TheAustinMan (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- The alt text does show up, thank you. The image maps convey information not accessible via the keyboard, so fail WCAG 2.0 but MOS:ACCESS offers no guidance on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- But you said at WT:ACCESS#About Image Mapping and Captions that the image map links do work with a keyboard, by using tab, enter and backspace. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Sorry to be blunt, but please try it for yourself, so that you can actually see what happens before making any more guesses. Yes, the LINKS work, although they take the viewer to a non-existent article half of the time. No, the TOOLTIP doesn't work if you use the keyboard, and as far as I can see the image map was implemented principally to display those tooltips, which fails accessibility standard WCAG H24: Providing text alternatives for the area elements of image maps. --RexxS (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- The table needs scope="col" for the column headers, and would benefit from having suitable row headers marked up with '!' and scope="row". There's a description at MOS:ACCESS#Data tables and a tutorial linked from there. However, if you want assistance with the markup, either I or one of the regulars here would be happy to help. --RexxS (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but I don't really know how to do that. And no, the tutorial doesn't really help me either sadly. TheAustinMan (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Thanks for doing the scope="col" charts and all that. You've earned my gratitude. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest removing <br><small>[[Foot (length)|ft]] / [[metre|m]]</small> from the Height header, as it is doubly redundant. The units are given explicitly in each data cell in that column and WP:OVERLINK has this guidance: Avoid linking common units of measurement. --RexxS (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Done The measurement "legend" has been removed. TheAustinMan (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
|
- Comments
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
:*One dablink
|
-
- The note should be source with inline citations, not in-prose ELs.
- "Skyscraperpage.com" → SkyscraperPage.com. Skyscraper Source Media
Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Yeah, I only increased it to 400 for, like you said, to see the buildings better when moving the mouse over, but if the images being at 400px causing the problems The Rambling Man has with horizontal constraint, then it might be best to reduce size to 350 or 300px. Or use {{clear}} Matthewedwards : Chat 21:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Done The concerns listed by The Rambling Man and Adabow have been generally resolved. Answering the question from the Rambling Man, Scarbrough Building is not wikilinked because it does not have a page. However, even though I have generally resolved your concerns, I don't know how to operate the sort template. If anyone could help me, that would be great. TheAustinMan (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- ✓ Done But... should One American Center, One Congress Plaza and One Texas Center be sorted under the letter O or the number 1? I've left them as O for now, but what do people think/what's usually done in this case? Matthewedwards : Chat 05:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I took a look at List of tallest buildings in New York City, which is a pretty big featured skyscraper list. They have a lot a buildings that are known as "One..." instead of "1..." When sorted, they file alphabetically, in that the go between N and P, rather than sorting at the top of the list. Using that, I would suspect that the buildings in this list sort under "O", as usual. TheAustinMan (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 8 needs an accessdate.
- What makes "Wikimapia" (ref 43) a reliable source?
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- You mean reference 28 right? Fixed. Wikimapia is not a reliable source because it is a open to edit thing. However, it is the only source of information regarding the completion of the William B. Travis Building. Should I remove the reference, along with the information though? TheAustinMan (talk) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I did, thanks. Unfortunately, with respect to wikimapia, unless you can source the information more reliably in keeping with WP:RS, I don't think it's wise to keep the information in the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Did you see if the building has a plaque on it or anything? That could be used as a Primary source? Maybe something at Austin Library has something in a book you could use. Matthewedwards : Chat 08:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
Latin Grammy Award for Best Male Pop Vocal Album
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of the Grammy WikiProject and I will try to take the Latin Grammy lists to featured status. This is a well referenced list, with images and an expanded lead section. Thanks to all the reviewers for your hard work. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
|
- Support I made a change to one caption per MOS:CAPTION. Nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment – Publishers in references 5 and 7 should be italicized, since they're both newspapers.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- FIXED! --Jaespinoza (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Support, assuming other reviewers' concerns have been (and are) addressed. List looks good, lead is appropriate, correct table and reference formatting, etc. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Timeline of town creation in the Hudson Valley
- Nominator(s): Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe all issues raised by the previous FL nomination prior to my extended wikibreak were taken care of, unfortunately I went on a break thinking everything was done and it would be promoted. Another editor came with concerns while I was gone, I have addressed those that are addressable, other concerns that I found to be incorrect or impossible have not been fixed due to obvious reasons (ISBN is not possible to put for a 1880 source for example) or that I found nitpicky (location for publisher I find unneeded on sources; format of diagram I am not compromising by turning into a table).Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose Refs 4 and 5, which were identified as, at best, being of questionable reliability, are still present. The research still looks lacking and limited to what is available online. Courcelles 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I find references 4 and 5 to be reliable and am willing for it to be brought to RS/N and abide by their decision. Research, even if it was limited to being only online (which it wasnt) would not be a problem for FL status from what I recall of the criteria. The claim that online sources must be backed up by something physical is a strange request, some of the books sourced to an online source like Google Books are ones I do physically own, but linking to Google books seemed a good help to users since this IS an online encyclopedia. Second- Courcelles asked in the previous FL whether I had looked at a full source or just the "50 word summaries of each page", makes me think Courcelles does not know how Google Books works, as the entire book is available on Google books and he/she seems to have been confused by the where the link drops you off at.Camelbinky (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- First, you can't prove unreliability, you have to prove reliability and you've made no attempt to do so. One would be entirely justified to oppose this on 4 and 5a grounds without considering the quality of research- the structure and visual appeal are lacking, and the entire thing is quite difficult to understand as a result of the stylistic choices. Courcelles 23:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Quick comments - the onus to prove reliability of questionable sources is on the nominator. I agree with Courcelles that (as a minimum) refs 4 and 5 need to be demonstrated to be reliable. How you achieve this is up to you, but if it's anticipated to take more than a couple of weeks, I suggest you find alternative sources which are reliable or withdraw the nomination. In other news...
- Several "double period" issues in the references caused by use of the template and a period at the end of a field, e.g. ref 15.
- Don't mix date formats in the references.
- Should La Grange be LaGrange (like our article on it?)
- "The timelines only represent which town(s) a particular town was created from and does not represent.." shouldn't that be "and do not"?
- Images all seem to be individually set for different sizes. Not ideal. Use thumb and upright where applicable.
- Is there an explanation of the difference between solid and dashed lines?
- Why is Chester placed as it is? Its line crosses others, are they supposed to merge? It's unclear to me.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- 1-fixed extraneous periods
2- I believe I fixed all date formats, let me know if I missed one.
3-fixed
4-fixed
5-some images are smaller due to constraints on size of the timelines, if all images are made the same size they would have to be all the same as the smallest I suppose. Is that the best remedy?
6-Yes, there is an explanation of the dashed lines in the section in which dashed lines appear. I could add an explanation in the lede if that is prefered as well.
7-yes, chester is supposed to merge, can work on placing Chester so that is more apparent.Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Isis discography
For your delectation: the discography of a fairly obscure metal band, without the bells and whistles you might find in the discog of a worldwide pop star or venerable rock group. Instead, it's a fairly warts-and-all account of Isis' release history, with minimal chart performance history, no worldwide sales counts and one or two silly and arcane early releases thrown in for good measure. Although it looks pretty bare, I like to think it's got all the bases well and truly covered. I eagerly await your feedback and will jump upon any recommendations with fervour. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Serious oppose - basics, suggest you withdraw until you've looked at......
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment – Just one quick one from me: reference 36 shouldn't be in all caps.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)- Fair enough, I had no idea that needed changing. Altered appropriately. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
That's fixed, but current ref 28 also has some all caps. Sorry I missed that before.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I had no idea that needed changing. Altered appropriately. Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Please increase text size of the notes. There's not so much that they can't be in normal size in the boxes. Matthewedwards : Chat 21:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Opening line: "Isis were an American post-metal band ..." Change to: "Isis was an American post-metal band" There is only ONE band that is discussed here. Jimknut (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. This is one of those AmEng-BrEng disparities. I've edited to fit AmEng style – thanks for the spot. Seegoon (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals
- Nominator(s): Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all FL criteria. Article has been based on a similar FL article, List of FIFA World Cup finals.Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- The first three were 60-over matches. Nowadays, ODI pretty much means 50 overs, so mention this fact in the prose.
- added to lede. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think it would be better if the key were summarised in table format. When a reader is going through the list and comes across some sort of symbol or colour, he doesn't want to read through several sentences to figure out what it means.
- The "Final" header column is pretty much redundant, IMHO. The article title says list of finals and the section heading also says final, so it's pretty obvious what the table is about.
- Its just to mention that we are talking about the actual final match result and not tournament on the whole (as the result is the same). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Make the table sortable. Is there a better way to arrange the information? For example, I'd like to sort the table by the scores of the first and second innings, as well as the teams. Try to separate them if possible.
- Arrange the co-hosts in alphabetical order, unless there is some other criteria?
- This is what has been officially used. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Official where? If you say it's official, you need to show that. Otherwise use alphabetical order which is the most neutral method. Also, the cricinfo scorecard pages used as inline refs for each row in the table do not mention the host nations, so make sure the host nations column is supported by refs. Chamal T•C 09:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps move the refs to their own column? This will make it obvious that the reference supports the information in the entire row, and not just the result. It'll be slightly easier to locate too.
Chamal T•C 14:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- Why is ICC expanded on its second use, not the first?
- Is there a reference covering your opening definition of the World Cup?
- Five of the six sentences in the first paragraph begin with "The": try varying your sentence structure to make the paragraph flow better, at the moment it seems little more than string of bullet points that have been put together.
- Ref 5 can go at the end of the sentence, there's no need for it to be mid-sentence like that, it just breaks the flow unnecessarily.
- "Seven teams have competed in every tournament, six teams have reached a final, five of which have won the title." – Sounds a bit repetitive: perhaps list the nations that have played in all the tournaments, and then state which of those did not reach a final and win. Something like (but probably different from): "Seven teams have competed in every tournament; Team A, Team B, Team C, Team D, Team E, Team F, Team G and Team H. Of these, only Team F have not reached the final, and England are the only finalists never to have won the competition."
- "There have been seven different venues used, with Lord's Cricket Ground hosting four matches [6] being the only venue to host more than one final." – Try to avoid sentence structures that use ", with ... verb-ing ..." such as this one does. Perhaps restructure it to: "Lord's Cricket Ground is the only one of the seven venues used to have hosted multiple finals, doing so on four occasions, in 1975, 1979, 1983 and 1999." (Or something like that).
- "..between 3 and 6 associate nations.." – write three and six out.
- Link associate nations to List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members.
- "Though an associate nation is yet to reach the finals," – Should be final, singular.
There are quite a lot more prose issues, and overall the prose is not written to a very professional level. If you can address the points above, and leave me a message on my talk page, I'll put up some more points, and we'll try and get the writing up to a better standard (although my own writing is often full of redundancies and the such). Harrias talk 12:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments – In addition to the ones above, I found these things:
- "The tournament has takes place every four years." Should be without "has". Also, there should be a note made that there have been three and five-year cycles in the past. Maybe say it's usually held every four years?
- "The current trophy stays with the ICC, a replica is awarded to the winning team." Could use "and" after the comma.
- Remove space before several reference in the lead, not just ref 5.
- No need to capitalize Cricket in "Nations with Test Cricket status...".
- "Since 1996, between 3 and 6 associate nations have qualified to play the tournament as well." Writing the numbers out has already been recommended, but let me add that the end would be better as "qualified to play in the tournament as well."
- The following is a run-on sentence and could stand to be split up into multiple sentences: "The West Indies won the first two tournaments, and Australia has won four, India won two and has been runner up once, while Pakistan has won the tournament once and has been runner up once as well." Australia having the most titles would be nice to note if this is split.
- Australia has played in the maximum final matches". It seems like "maximum" would be better served as a simple "most".
- "remaining runner up in all three finals appearances." I don't like the use of "remaining", and this is another plural use of "finals" which should be made singular.
- Caption: "ICC retains the current trophy with inscriptions whiles an exact replica without inscriptions is awarded to each winner." "whiles" → "while". Also, "The" should be added at the start.
- The table has "Runner-up", while the lead has a couple uses of "runner up". Does it have the hyphen or not? I think it should, but the page should be consistent either way.
- In the main table, decapitalize Venue in "Final Venue" and Nation(s) from "Host Nation(s).
- Last word should be decapitalized in the Results by Nation heading.
- References 1–4 and 6–7 should have the publishers in italics, since they are from newspapers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
List of Seattle Mariners team records
- Nominator(s): WikiProject Seattle Mariners, Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Should be a nice addition to WikiProject Seattle Mariners. Albacore (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
That's done.
What do you mean?
Moved to last sentence.
Reworded.
Now one sentence.
That's done.
I think leaving it as singular would be better.
That's done.
That's done.
Can't hurt, especially if someone ever wanted to.
So, for instance, reference five. You want me to put the ndash between history and baseball, right. I'd object to putting the ndash between Baseball - Reference.com because it doesn't look right. Albacore (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Albacore (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Comments from KV5
- Remove year links to baseball seasons in prose; per template documentation for {{by}} and {{mlby}}, they are to be used only in lists and tables where it is clear their context is not simply a link to a year.
De-linked.
- Cameron has four home runs in a game - no link to this FL in the lede?
Linked.
- "Gene Walter, a Mariner for 1988 season" - missing the - for the 1988 season
Fixed.
- "which he achieved on July 18, 1988" - redundant to say 1988 here when you already said it earlier in the same sentence
Removed 1988.
- Link American League on first appearance in the lede
Linked.
- "during their tenure" - should be tenures since you are referring to multiple players
Pluralized.
- The tables don't currently meet WP:ACCESS requirements. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (accessibility)/Data tables tutorial for instructions and more information.
- How do my tables differ any from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records, an FL, which I based the article from? Albacore (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- They don't differ, but that's an older FL (which I know because I wrote it). The new criteria have more stringent requirements to meet WP:ACCESS. Don't worry, that one will be updated too; updating all of the FLs that I've nominated and had promoted to ACCESS-worthy status is a long-term goal of mine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I added scope tags to the columns and captions to the tables. Does this now pass WP:ACCESS? Albacore (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good start. You still need row headers, and now the captions make the table subheaders extraneous, so those can be removed at this time. — KV5 • Talk • 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added row headers and removed sub-headers, and replaced colors. Anything else? Albacore (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know why the colors were changed; background colors are much better than text coloring. Right now, the row headers are coded wrong. Since this is a list of records, the "record" column is probably the header, rather than the statistic or the player who holds the record, although there are good arguments for all three. But when using row headers, you can't have everything on one row of code; the header has to be on its own row or the last element in its row. I'll mark up one of the tables as an example. — KV5 • Talk • 16:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, the first table and the key are done as examples. You are probably going to want to adjust your colors because they are too dark for backgrounds. I just used the same ones that were there. — KV5 • Talk • 16:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Added row headers and removed sub-headers, and replaced colors. Anything else? Albacore (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good start. You still need row headers, and now the captions make the table subheaders extraneous, so those can be removed at this time. — KV5 • Talk • 12:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- I added scope tags to the columns and captions to the tables. Does this now pass WP:ACCESS? Albacore (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- They don't differ, but that's an older FL (which I know because I wrote it). The new criteria have more stringent requirements to meet WP:ACCESS. Don't worry, that one will be updated too; updating all of the FLs that I've nominated and had promoted to ACCESS-worthy status is a long-term goal of mine. — KV5 • Talk • 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Good now? Albacore (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Replace daggers with {{dagger}} and appropriate alt text.
Done.
- Why use a picture of Ichiro in a Japan uniform when there are five-plus pictures of his in his article in a Mariner uniform, most notably this one by the excellent Keith Allison?
Replaced.
- Missing an en-dash in the "Career pitching" table
- Actually there are no en-dashes in the career pitching table. Putting them in makes the years malfit the table. I don't know why that is, they are the only years like that, but I can't find a solution. Albacore (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- "Mariner's franchise holder" - needs to be record holder and Mariners'
Done.
- "Tied with John Dopson, Rick Honeycutt, Vic Raschi, and Bobby Witt." is a sentence fragment; remove period/full stop at the end
Removed period.
- "Win-loss percentage" should be en-dash, not hyphen
- Done.
- Unspace this en-dash. — KV5 • Talk • 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- It is unspaced. Looks wrong; probably leaving it as a hyphen would be better. Albacore (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 19:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments –
- No need to repeat Ichiro's name in the lead.
- The last sentence of the lead would make more sense at the end of the first paragraph. That provides a nice segway into talking about the individual players.
Moved, does sound better there.
- What makes baseball-almanac.com (refs 26 and 27) a reliable source? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1982 Asian Games medal table
- Nominator(s): Bill william comptonTalk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
This is my first nomination, so please try to go easy on me I'm nominating this for featured list because I think it follows all the attributes of Featured list criteria, also it has been reviewed by some of well experienced users during its peer review. Thanks, Bill william comptonTalk 17:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
"If nations are still tied, equal ranking is given; they are listed alphabetically by IOC country code.[12][4]" — refs should be numerical sorted
- Done
-
"The total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold or silver medals because two bronze medals were awarded per event in three sports: badminton, boxing and table tennis (except the team events)[13][14][15]." — ref after period
- Done
-
"Three gymnasts in men's parallel bars and two each in men's floor, women's uneven bar and women's floor tied for second place, thus no bronzes were awarded in these events, also no silver was awarded for men's parallel bars; tie for third in men's vault meant that two bronze medals were awarded.[17][18]" — I would replace also with and.
- Done
-
Ref 2: Needs a format parameter
- I think the format is web, isn't it?
- No, it is in pdf format
- Done
-
Consistency on format is needed in date and accessdates.
- Done
-
YRef 10: May I ask where you found the book? There is no asin and even not a isbn. I don't think the title is "Yojana Volume – 32,, Number – 12 "; I think it is simply "Voyana" and the volume and number should be split into their own parameters. "Volume" should be involume=
, and the "Number" possibly inseries=
-
- It's not a book but a monthly-magazine published by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India) (Indian Government). Yojana means Strategy, I didn't know how to cite a magazine (because ProveIt doesn't show any magazine option), but now I've added more specific parameters and cited under journal attribute, like this — {cite magazine |author=Kaur Vijay, Sriman R, Rijvi S.T. Husain |title=Yojana (Spotlight on youth & sports) |journal=Socio-Economic |volume=32 |issue=12 |pages=18–36 |year=1988 |location=Delhi|publisher=Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India)}. I think it's okay now.
- Yes, looks good
- It's not a book but a monthly-magazine published by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India) (Indian Government). Yojana means Strategy, I didn't know how to cite a magazine (because ProveIt doesn't show any magazine option), but now I've added more specific parameters and cited under journal attribute, like this — {cite magazine |author=Kaur Vijay, Sriman R, Rijvi S.T. Husain |title=Yojana (Spotlight on youth & sports) |journal=Socio-Economic |volume=32 |issue=12 |pages=18–36 |year=1988 |location=Delhi|publisher=Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (India)}. I think it's okay now.
-
Overlinking in the refs.
- Where is Overlinking? please mention.
- like "Doha Asian Games' " or "New Delhi"--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- ? I'm still lost, if you're taking about that why I referenced this link to NEW DELHI 1982 than the reason is that this is a overview of Games and this is a medal table published by OCA, both are different things. I used reference to "Doha Asian Games" four different times, because I need to provide reference for each boxing, swimming, table tennis and badminton and information is available on separate page of website (which actually is an archive of website). If you still think that I'm not properly responding to your query then please provide diffs for overlinked refs.
- I did it for you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it now! Thanks
- ? I'm still lost, if you're taking about that why I referenced this link to NEW DELHI 1982 than the reason is that this is a overview of Games and this is a medal table published by OCA, both are different things. I used reference to "Doha Asian Games" four different times, because I need to provide reference for each boxing, swimming, table tennis and badminton and information is available on separate page of website (which actually is an archive of website). If you still think that I'm not properly responding to your query then please provide diffs for overlinked refs.
- like "Doha Asian Games' " or "New Delhi"--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:16, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-
"Medal distribution": the brown color in the legend doesn't look like the one in the map.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done
- Support Meets criteria. Won't capping, because it doesn't work correctly.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments – Gave a review at PR, and have a second batch of comments, some of which relate to that first review.
if you want then check here. But as taking precaution I've removed this link. |
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments good stuff, I contributed to the PR so not much more to add here.
|
- Support - everything looks good. Just one minor detail, symbol is needed to accompany the color per WP:ACCESS. I've done it for you already.—Chris!c/t 21:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Chris....
Older nominations
List of Scotland national football team hat-tricks
After randomly coming across the FL List of England national football team hat-tricks, I checked to see if there was a Scottish article and there was - I've changed it to match the formatting on the England FL, expanded the prose section and added the conceded section. Hit a problem image-wise as there simply doesn't seem to be much in the way of free use images available for Scottish players listed (in fact, there isn't a single one). Miyagawa (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Oppose until a few issues are solved:
- no reference provided that these 29 are the only 3 or more goals scored
- same for those scored against (I am suspicious that the list is so short)
-
- There isn't a specific reference to say either - essentially I went through the entire list of Scotland results to double check and collate the article. I've added a general reference for the index page of the website, but in order to place an inline citation for either of those comments on the tables below, I'd have to insert 21 seperate citations for each (as the information is spread across 21 seperate webpages). Miyagawa (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- An fairly elegant solution would be to use something like that at List_of_Metallica_concert_tours#Notes. Nergaal (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- color scheme needed for 4 goals and for the instance where Scotland actually lost (really rare to score a hat-trick and still lose
- a hat-trick is 3 goals, not more
Nergaal (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- Note b: Year ranges should have en dashes. Even in notes, style should be maintained.
- The first range still has a hyphen. The rest look good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Note c: Showing up on the same line as the end of note b for me. Maybe this could be avoided by using bullet points?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I think I've fixed those points. Removed the image, realized it was a coding error causing note c to attach itself to note b. Fixed the sorting in the results column - found that it was due to a lack of preceding zeros for the single digit results. Let me know if any of these issues are recurring for you and I'll find another way to resolve them. Miyagawa (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- The information in note A is essential enough that it should be presented before the table.
- It is generally less reader friendly to produce the key after than before the table. People need to know the legend before they read the map.
- I would recommend making a short introduction to the table which contains the note about war-year matches, the content in note A and the yellow issue.
- If the content in note D sourced in any way beyond grooming through the ten RSSSF links?
- Any possibilities of free images? For instances any person to have made a hat-trick.
- Refs are normally center-aligned.
- I believe the Dutchman should be sorted as 'Nistelrooy' rather than 'van Nistelrooy'.
- Should not the RSSSF links be dated?
Arsenikk (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I think I've addressed these issues now. The sorting has been fixed for Nistlerooy and the key moved above the tables. Ref columns are now center aligned and moved the info from note A to above each table. There are no free use images of any of the goal scorers as far as I can find, I did have a fair use image but it was requested to be removed by an earlier reviewer. The content in note D (now C) isn't available in a single link - those ten links list every Scotland football result and are to represent that there are no missing hat tricks. Miyagawa (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Grammy Award for Best Urban/Alternative Performance
- Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I currently believe it make featured list criteria. I have recently promoted a grammy list to FL and by the looks of things (if it gets more reviews) I will soon have a second FL grammy list under my belt as well.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I made several edits to the list--feel free to state if you disagree with any of the changes made. Overall, I think the list is good. No disambig links or problematic external links. I would just make sure that (especially now that the award has been disestablished) its entire history is present. I think this part could be expanded: "The award will be discontinued from 2012 in a major overhaul of Grammy categories. In 2012, the category will be shifted to the Best R&B Performance category." I will take another look at the list soon. (Note: I am busy constructing the Grammy Awards task force, to the point where I am forgetting about my own FLC nominations, mostly due to lack of activity.) --Another Believer (Talk) 04:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll look for more information on the history =), thanks for commenting!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
|
Comments –
- The size of the list is only nine items. This is very thin for a piece of featured content, and in the old days would have been heavily opposed for not meeting the unofficial 10-item rule of the time. Criteria 3b is a little friendlier to such a list (a merge somewhere is unlikely), but I think it's worthy of note in case anyone else wants to comment on it.
"the award was presented to artists that have made 'newly recorded urban/alternative performances with vocals". Since this is now past tense (the award won't be presented any more), why is "have" here?Space needed before the last sentence of the lead."in a major overhaul of Grammys". Missing "the" before Grammys.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments! All Done!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- The general ref should link directly to the category
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 2 does not need publisher linked
- Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- The main issue I have with this list is the definition of the category. Urban contemporary is a radio format, not a music genre, so it may imply that artists receive the award for heavy urban airplay. The linking of "alternative" to alternative hip hop is both WP:OR and WP:EASTEREGG.
- So shall I just link urban/alternative to the r&b genre (since that's that category it's under at the grammys) or just no link?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Backstreet Boys discography
- Nominator(s): KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have put a lot of work into it and I do think it should be a featured list KingdomHearts25 (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Certifications are awarded for units shipped, not units sold. Therefore it is incorrect to list sales figures in the "Sales Based on Claims and Certification-Awards" column based on certs alone.—indopug (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. I removed all sales based on certs and changed the title to 'Sales' KingdomHearts25 (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
More
- Mixed dates in the refs contravenes WP:MOS.
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Bare url in the refs (ref. 76)
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please actually reference those releases which didn't chart anywhere, i.e. Bigger, Crawling Back to You, the last two compilation albums...
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments –
"and four World Music Awards including five categories in 1998, one category in 1999, four categories in 2000 and two categories in 2001." The only way the number of categories makes sense is if they are a combination of all four award wins mentioned in this sentence. Is that the case?- Yes, it is. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
References 9, 14, and 45 should have publishers italicized since they are from printed publications.- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Remove all caps from ref 53.- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Publishers of refs 13, 54, 60, and 72 should be spelled out.- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- aCharts (ref 62 and 65) and everyhit.com (ref 71) have always been found lacking when it comes to reliability. Why are they now reliable?
- aCharts: WP:BADCHARTS states that aCharts is not reliable only for some countries like Italy. As far as the American and Canadian charts are concerned, it is definitely reliable. I am saying this not only because the website is not listed for these countries at BADCHARTS but also because every position of the top 100 weekly singles at acharts corresponds exactly with the top 100 singles at Billboard.
- I doubt it would pass muster at FAC, and I don't see why our sourcing standards shouldn't match theirs. Is there anything better that can be used as a source for the info? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- As for acharts.us, please note the language at WP:GOODCHARTS explaining the green star symbol used with acharts.us: Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible. There's no information at acharts.us that cannot be found at a licensed site.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Removed aCharts. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Still see it in current refs 63 and 66. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Removed aCharts. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- As for acharts.us, please note the language at WP:GOODCHARTS explaining the green star symbol used with acharts.us: Good and Featured class articles should not rely on unlicensed archives as convenience links, and should use official sites and licensed archives where possible. There's no information at acharts.us that cannot be found at a licensed site.—Kww(talk) 23:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt it would pass muster at FAC, and I don't see why our sourcing standards shouldn't match theirs. Is there anything better that can be used as a source for the info? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- aCharts: WP:BADCHARTS states that aCharts is not reliable only for some countries like Italy. As far as the American and Canadian charts are concerned, it is definitely reliable. I am saying this not only because the website is not listed for these countries at BADCHARTS but also because every position of the top 100 weekly singles at acharts corresponds exactly with the top 100 singles at Billboard.
-
- everyhit.com: Done. I have removed everyhit.com KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
In addition to the aforementioned ref 76, ref 75 needs further formatting.- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- Not certain that Platinum, Diamond should be capitalised in the prose
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- "After the Black & Blue Tour in 2001, the Backstreet Boys entered a two-year hiatus. They released their fifth studio album, Never Gone, in 2005." My maths must be off because 2001 + 2 years = 2003. So what happened between 2003 and 2005?
- Done. Removed the "two year". KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- When used as a conjunctive, "However" shouldn't start a sentence. Easy fix: change "blah blah blah. However blah blah blah" to "Blah blah blah; however, blah blah blah". Better fix: remove it altogether and recast the sentence.
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Compilation albums table has the Sales column, but it's empty. Why not remove it?
- It would be a better idea to have it because the studio album table has the column and it would be inconsistent not to have it here, even though there aren't any sales mentioned. Linkin Park discography is an example. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- The WP:FL? require the list be complete. An emtpy column of sales figures implies we forgot to put it in, someone removed it, and that the list is incomplete. Removing the column removes that worry. Since the albums did sell copies, if you insist on leaving the column in, you need to put sales figures. Think about writing the article for the album. Would you put "The album sold __________ copies" and leave a gap because we don't know the figure, or would you simply not mention it? Matthewedwards : Chat 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It would be a better idea to have it because the studio album table has the column and it would be inconsistent not to have it here, even though there aren't any sales mentioned. Linkin Park discography is an example. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Is Backstreet Boys "For the Fans" a notable release? Should it be included here?
- Done. Removed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- A discography is supposed to catalogue releases. NKOTBSB is set for release in May. It isn't out yet, doesn't really exist, and so isn't part of their discography
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Table header is fucked up in the Singles, for Canada. Why not just put the reference by the chart position for that one?
- Done, fixed it. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please use correct ISO-3 names for the countries. NL, GER, SWI mean nothing
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Copied from Matthewedwards' talkpage:
Hey, this is regarding your comment while reviewing the BSB discography on FLC that NL, SWI, and GER should be changed according to ISO-3. I did what you said but another editor reverted my edit saying that this system is not used anymore. He kinda seems to be right as most discographies, including featured ones, seem to have SWI, GER, etc. So, should we leave it as it is or should I still change it? KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Then he's probably the one going around changing them. All the discog FLs I've done, I've been asked to do ISO-3 names as they're official. I've also seen other discog nominations being asked to make them ISO-3, as well as a discussion on a talk page somewhere at WP:DISCOG, perhaps the style page. Check out some of them from the date they were promoted, you'll likely find more. GER and SWI have no meaning and are simply wrong. but the thing is that small edits like changing DEU to GER and SUI to SWI won't flag people when they see the edit on their watchlist because no bytes have been added or removed, and so they end up being left that way. Matthewedwards : Chat 21:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Copied from Matthewedwards' talkpage:
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
We always want to make sense when requiring for certain styles. SUI=suisse is in French, DEU=Deutschland is in German; in other words, if we are going to ask editors to post these two in their native languages, we might as well ask for all other markets be posted in their native languages including Finland which would be SUO=Suomen and not FIN, Sweden which would be SVE=Sverige and not SWE, Austria would be ÖST=Österreich and not AUT etc.. The country abbreviations are in English also at Discographies/style/samples. --Harout72 (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- ISO 3166 is an internationally recognized standard for country codes and abbreviations. Requiring SUI and DEU is not asking for abbreviations in native tongue, just in the internationally recognized standard. Check out ISO 3166-1, a fully referenced and FL article about the codes. The ISO 3166-1 code for Germany is DEU, for Switzerland it's CHE (Latin for "Confœderatio Helvetica"; I made a typo before when I said "SUI" without thinking). For Finland it is FIN, for Sweden it is SWE, and for Austria it is AUT. SVE, SUO and ÖST have nothing to do with anything. You're right, we do want to make sense, and I agree, using those three doesn't make sense. Using made up abbreviations because we want pre-teen and teen Backstreet Boys fans to understand what county we mean doesn't. We're an encyclopedia. Let's educate. Let's, since we require professional standards of writing at WP:FL?, use the ISO-3166 codes, which do make sense. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I'm aware of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I don't think we necessarily need to implement those internationally recognized ISO codes in discography tables. I do recall seeing the ISO codes in the past in the tables, but they haven't been in use for quite some time now. Can we really call it a teen desired made up abbreviations? I don't know, but the fact remains that there are no featured discographies with ISO codes implemented in them for DEU=Germany, CHE=Switzerland. However; if this is something that some reviewers desire to see changed, surely the sample table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style needs to be amended first. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to single out one discography.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- If they haven't been used in quite some time, and I'm not sure I believe that, it's probably because a person or people have been surreptitiously changing them. As I said previously, changing DEU to GER won't flag anyone who is watching the page because there is 0 bytes of change. Even the odd ±5 bytes here and there wouldn't cause a page watcher to stop and check out what's changed. Then, because eventually those people have changed enough pages without raising eyebrows, because it isn't noticeable unless you're looking for it, it becomes accepted as the norm. It isn't. They're incorrect abbreviations. The sample table at the Discog style page doesn't need amending first because it isn't a Manual of Style guideline or sub-guideline. It hasn't even been "officially" approved as a style guide by the discog people. There's a huge notice at the top that it's a proposal and it has been for years. The page is effectively dead. It hasn't been updated to reflect what's required at FLC, which sets the standard of what is "the best example [of a list] Wikipedia has to offer", and there hasn't been any discussion on the talk page for months. Besides, a proposal isn't set in stone and even an accepted MOS has changes made to it periodically. While ever they continue to be in the article,FLC is the only place the Discog people discuss their articles. This page is being "singled out" because it has been put up for review, and I'm reviewing it. I'm not reviewing any other, but if I do I'll ask for the same. If you don't want it singled out, don't nominate it, simple. As with all the discogs I've put up, and the ones I've been involved in reviewing, they have been asked to use internationally standardized abbreviations. Perhaps the Discog folk have gotten lax in their standards in my absence, but I'm here again, and while ever we have incorrect abbreviations in an FLC for no good reason other than WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'll stand by my oppose because being wrong does not sit comfortably with "exemplifies our very best work". Matthewedwards : Chat 05:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- The only time "GER" would be an acceptable abbreviation for Germany is in Olumpic-related or football-related articles, possibly some other international sporting events that "borrow" the IOC codes. Same for "SUI" (not "SWI") for Switzerland (That's why I typed it earlier!). Since discographies and the music industry doesn't have an "official" list of country abbreviations, we default to the ISOs, as with every other subject that doesn't. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I was invited to this discussion by Harout72, and I'm going to wind up agreeing with both of you. Harout72 is right that discographies don't normally use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes. That isn't because of people making surreptitious changes, that's because WP:DISCOGSTYLE doesn't use them. It just makes up it's own codes. Matthewedwards is right that that isn't how it should be: discography articles should use a standard system. I think the discussion of which system to use belongs at WT:DISCOGSTYLE, and I wouldn't have any objection to any editor that decided not to support any more discographies becoming WP:FLs until the matter is resolved.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- While I'm aware of ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, I don't think we necessarily need to implement those internationally recognized ISO codes in discography tables. I do recall seeing the ISO codes in the past in the tables, but they haven't been in use for quite some time now. Can we really call it a teen desired made up abbreviations? I don't know, but the fact remains that there are no featured discographies with ISO codes implemented in them for DEU=Germany, CHE=Switzerland. However; if this is something that some reviewers desire to see changed, surely the sample table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style needs to be amended first. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to single out one discography.--Harout72 (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Instead of a footnote that makes the reader scroll all the way down to the bottom of the page, just do a line break and small font to say "Don't Turn Out The Lights" is performed with New Kids
- Done. I just brought the note to the single section, so the user doesnt have to go all the way to the bottom of the page. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rows for Number 1 hits and Top 10 hits aren't standard and are not needed. Any half-wit can count all the 1s in a column and figure out how many number 1 hits they had in a country.
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps retitle the Videos section as Home videos?
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 2, 21, etc Billboard is a magazine, so it should be italicised. Be consistent between "Billboard" and "Billboard magazine"
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- What makes Rockonthenet.com a Reliable Source?
- It has reliable information, is not blacklisted, the certifications and awards posted there seem to be accurate, I don't know what is unreliable about it. I think it is a pretty safe site to use. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many sites that are unreliable aren't blacklisted. We need a bit better reassurance than than "it seem to be accurate" and "I think it's pretty safe to me". What do you base this on? To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information.
- This applies equally to the acharts reference that Giants mentioned earlier. How can they be considered totally unreliable for some information but reliable for others? It doesn't make sense. If the site is wrong, it's wrong, it doesn't matter that some of what they have is right. Surely there are other sources available? Matthewedwards : Chat 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- It has reliable information, is not blacklisted, the certifications and awards posted there seem to be accurate, I don't know what is unreliable about it. I think it is a pretty safe site to use. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hung Median and Chart Stats shouldn't be italicised as they're just website names, not publication titles
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- BPI is a company, and that shouldn't be italicised.
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ref 51, 55, etc remove riaj.or.jp from the attribution
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Not too bad, but needs a bit of work. Oppose for now. Please ping my talk page for a revisit. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Additional
- What makes enotes.com a RS?
- What makes infodisc.fr a RS?
- What makes videostatic.com a RS?
- Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What makes discogs.com a RS?
- Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What makes Imdb.com a RS?
- Done. Changed to RS. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What makes Chartstats.com a RS?
- Done. Changed to a more reliable source. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- cmt.com --> Country Music Television
- Done. KingdomHearts25 (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Matthewedwards : Chat 21:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin discography
- Nominator(s): ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I improved some things after the first nomination, including some peak chart positions, which were wrong. Also reassessed small things like spaced em-dashes, newspapers not in italicface, references missing and organisations not wikilinked. I hope it passes this time. Happy reviewing.♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Thanks for the review.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Support – All the issues I pointed out were taken care of. Also, the discography has improved a lot too. Novice7 (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
- "Led Zeppelin's untitled fourth album, often called Led Zeppelin IV, is their most commercially successful album. It received a 23× Platinum certification from RIAA, the third-highest of all albums." — Can you mention that "Stairway to Heaven" came from this album? I think we can safely say that it's one of the all-time classics of rock'n'roll. Jimknut (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't think it is really that important to add this. It is already mentioned in the third paragraph.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are the album tracks "Darlene", "Ozobe Baby" and "Poor Tom" listed in the singles discography? None of those songs were released as singles. Piriczki (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- I reworded the section, infobox and lead beginning.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 16:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- How does the reader know which titles in the singles discography were singles and which titles weren't singles? Piriczki (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I recently got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop:
"GER" has no meaning. I could accept it in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER is not an acceptable abbreviation in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using it. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will have to oppose. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is not a valid reason to oppose, only because you don't like the abbreviation. "Oppose" simply means, that you think this list is against the criteria. "GER" is simply and understandable, whereby "DE" not. This is just a disco and not a list about some sport competition, like you said. You can put any abbreviation you want, but it must be understandable for readers.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I changed it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support, thanks Matthewedwards : Chat 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I changed it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Piffle. Of course it's a valid reason to oppose. Not just because I don't like it but because it is wrong. It is against the criteria. Criterion 1 requires "professional standards of writing." GER isn't a valid abbreviation for Germany except when writing about the Olympics or football. Outside of those it has no meaning. DE and DEU do. They are accepted standards. Where did you come up with using whatever you like as long as it's understandable. Again, it has no meaning in general usage, and so I don't understand it. It's usage is incorrect and not professional. This may be just a discog, but it's also being asked to be identified as a page that exemplifies our very best work, and whether it's a discog, sport list, tallest building list or list of species, they are all held to the same standard. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose The merging of singles, promotional singles, and other charted songs is not good. It doesn't let the reader know which is which. Separate. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- No, there are notes below (C and D).--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I see that, but since there are so many of each, it is best to just have each separate sections. That's my main concern. Other than that, I think the page is missing very little to become an FL. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Ok done.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Great, but now there are needed columns that are not needed. For example, in the "Singles" section, no song charted on "US Digital", but the chart is still there. Please remove it from that particular table. Same thing goes for "Charted songs" and "Music downloads". -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- is it ok so? In the "Charted songs" column, if I'll remove the columns, only one column remains. So I decided not to delete it.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- One one column should remain. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that if it only charted on one chart. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- ok done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Support Specially with the new expansion in the lead. Congratulations! A job well done. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- "eight digital songs" I've never heard them referred to like this, are they "download-only" songs?
-
- yes, download-only songs, MP3 downloads; reworded.
- Also not clear what a "charted song" is when other singles etc have "charted".
-
- A charted song is a song which charted in any charts, but was not released as a single. Singles are released songs, but not vice versa. It is not usual that songs get charted.
-
- I'm confused. What format did these "items" chart as? Singles? Albums? EPs? How did they chart if they weren't released? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't know how; on Billboard (magazine) it says, that Billboard 100 ranks top 100 songs based on "physical sales, digital sales and radio airplay", so either they were charted digital or per radio airplay. They haven't got any format I deplore.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- "including 8× Multi-Platinum " -> "including eight times multi-platinum"
-
- Not sure why you suggest this; I think it should be consistent with all others. But I reworded it.
-
- It was a general comment to make sure that the prose was excellent rather than full of grammatically incorrect figures. There are still other instances of this in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- done--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 22:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same for following instances of that phrase.
-
- done
- When was LZ IV released (for the benefit of the lead)?
-
- done
- "the Led Zeppelin Box Set, Vol. 2 and the " not the same title as you used for the album in the table.
-
- done
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Miley Cyrus discography
- Nominator(s): ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all criteria to become a Featured List on Wikipedia. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment Don't you think the lead is too long for such a young singer who has released only three studio albums, and probably has a long career ahead of her? With every new release, the lead will only become more bloated, and would need to be significantly rewritten. I suggest that rewriting be done now itself so that it can easily incorporate additions.—indopug (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't think so because although she released three studio albums, she released five well-known soundtracks. And as her career expands, the discography will probably be split in half, such as Mariah Carey discography. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*Quick Comments
|
Comment Look at Ref 99. Something's wrong there. Otherwise nice disco.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Done.
-
- ok then I'll Support. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why isn't Hannah Montana discography completely merged here? Nergaal (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- What do you mean? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- Since Miley Cyrus discography covers all the Hanna Montana releases, why does the HM discog need to exist? Shouldn't it be a redirect to MC discog?—indopug (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Consensus is yet to be determined for that. But I'm thinking of keeping it and leaving as a discography for the Hannah Montana franchise (which includes more albums and singles) and not the fictional character, which makes more sense. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
-
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
Comment Some might think this as being a bit pointy since I got into a discussion about it at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Backstreet Boys discography/archive1, but, <shrugs> that's for the closing director to decide. I was told there that this is common practice at discography pages recently, and I think it has to stop. "GER" and "SPA" mean nothing. More so for "SPA". I could accept "GER" in an Olympic- or football-related article, but that isn't the case here. We should use international standards for abbreviating country names when a differing standard hasn't been approved (such as in the two cases already mentioned). GER and SPA are not acceptable abbreviations in regular usage, and a list that "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work" shouldn't be using them. So, while the article continues to uses abbreviations pulled out of our arses, I will oppose. Matthewedwards : Chat 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to change the abbreviations to anything, but the discussion should be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Discographies. Also, if the abbreviations are changed, how would you order the charts? By alphabetic order according to abbreviations or full English names? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would alphabetize by abbreviation, so "DER" comes before "FRA" (even though "France" is alphabetically before "Germany"), but it's up to you. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
- They have been changed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Support Matthewedwards : Chat 21:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- They have been changed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would alphabetize by abbreviation, so "DER" comes before "FRA" (even though "France" is alphabetically before "Germany"), but it's up to you. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- "which first aired in March 2006. " ref?
-
- Done.
- I find it odd that in the lead you have "triple platinum" i.e. uncapitalised platinum, but in the tables you have "3x Platinum"...
-
- Many FL discographies like Madonna albums discography follow the same procedure, as it in the text, certifications are in paragraphs and are treated as a regular noun (not a proper noun, which are supposed to be capitalized). Meanwhile, in the table, they are not. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Cyrus then signed a record deal with Hollywood Records to launch a career under her own name." ref?
-
- What type of source is needed? It is sourced throughout the article that all material as herself have been released with Hollywood Records. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Two dates "as of (mid) 2010" - any updates considering it's nearly mid-2011?
-
- Nope, sorry. Since she hasn't released any material and, therefore not set any records, in over a year, updates are extremely scarce. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Other live albums calls both releases EPs, but yet there's only one EP listed. I guess this is ... okay ... but a little odd, are they live albums or live EPs?
-
- It's a complex explanation, but they are considered live albums because they are live... however they do have EP lengths. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Where is "I'm Still Good" referenced?
-
- The general references, like the Allmusic source, reference uncharted releases. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Recommend you specifically link these. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't think it needs it. Then, every single release would need a specific source. A general source should suffice. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- No, every single which didn't chart anywhere should be individually cited. Otherwise I don't know how to prove they ever existed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Provide links here, to you. Is that what you mean? Here they are: [2][3][4]. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- Same comment for "Nothing to Lose"?
- And "Rockin' around the Christmas Tree" and "Are Your Ready". They didn't chart, how or where do I determine they ever existed?
- "Can't Be Tamed - Mini DVD" needs an en-dash.
-
- Done.
- Note P - "ninety-aix"
-
- Done.
- Ref 1 format fail.
-
- Done.
- Ref 2 - en-dash please.
-
- Done.
- And ref 16.
-
- Done.
- and ref 32.
-
- Done.
- Check all others, there are many more...
-
- Done.
- You relink Media Control Charts in the refs, but you don't relink Billboard etc. Take a consistent approach to relinking (or not) in the refs.
-
- I don't believe there are any repeated links to Media Control Charts in the refs. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 21:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Did you look? 24, 25 both link it. As do 46 and 47. However, 59 to 61 and 67 don't link it... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Done.
- Also, if you only link once, make sure it's the first time.
-
- Done.
- Refs 95, 96, you cite a single page so it should be p. not pp.
-
- Done.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
List of Giro d'Italia general classification winners
I am nominating this for featured list because, although it's been a while since I brought a list here I think that this one is ready to become featured and hopefully meets all of the criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk) |
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
Comments from EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*Oppose For lack of verifiability of the team column. Will change to support once acceptable source for the teams is found. (The current source only shows that the riders rode for the displayed team at a certain point during the year, not that they rode for the team during the Giro.) See discussion below.
|
- Oppose for non-verifiable info in the table (specifically: teams before 1940)--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Strange Passerby (talk • cont) |
---|
*Original comments 12:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
|
- Support. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
List of Benet Academy alumni
Hey all. This is my first FLC attempt (and the first list I've worked on), so I'd really appreciate some feedback! FYI a huge chunk of the lead is just a summary of the main Benet Academy article. Thanks, Edge3 (talk) 16:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support —Mrwojo (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC); I do have some comments though:
- It wasn't clear to me that "the school enrolled only men of Bohemian or Slovak ancestry" referred to the Czech college.
- I'm not an expert on this, but aren't those three ethnicities related in some way?
- Non-graduates should have an "N/A" or em dash to indicate that the Graduated column is intentionally without a date.
- Em dashes added
- A sortable table would be convenient.
- Porter Moser has a period at the end of his description unlike all others. Because they aren't complete sentences perhaps the few descriptions that use periods should use commas or semicolons instead? (Just a thought.)
- Period removed from Moser entry; semicolons added between phrases within entries
- It wasn't clear to me that "the school enrolled only men of Bohemian or Slovak ancestry" referred to the Czech college.
- Why is this list titled "people" and not "alumni"? Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I really don't have an explanation for that. I moved the page. Edge3 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I fixed up all the redirects etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I really don't have an explanation for that. I moved the page. Edge3 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments'
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
Comments –
What makes BoxingScene.com (ref 22) a reliable source?- I can see why you would be suspicious of that source. I've replaced it with a (hopefully) better source.
Ref 10 gives the page number as pp., when it should just be p. (single-page cite).Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)- I switched the parameter.
Thanks for your comments! Edge3 (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
List of France international footballers
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the required criteria and would benefit its associated project if it became a featured list due to the importance of the players on the list in their sport. –J10S Talk 21:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Quick comment I'm not a fan of colours used in the table, they are two similiar for my liking. I would like to see one them replaced with, for example, with green or yellow. Utinsh (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Even if the colours are kept, symbols need to be used as well, per WP:ACCESS........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment the intro is overwhelming. Consider splitting a good chunk of it as a separate section. Nergaal (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC) |
-
-
- What is the status of this nomination? It has been dormant for a few days. — JSRant Away 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- I placed it in the backlog listing at the top of the FLC page. Hopefully that will attract some more attention to this list, which has been languishing here without further review for almost three weeks now. Perhaps you could post a message at the soccer (football) WikiProject asking for reviews? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is the status of this nomination? It has been dormant for a few days. — JSRant Away 20:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
-
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Discontinued Hugo Awards
Last one! The first FLC was 11 months ago, and here we are with the 14th! This one breaks the mold of all the other Hugo Award lists- instead of one long table, it's several! As said in the article, each individual convention is allowed to make up its own Hugo Awards, which are just as official as the others despite not being binding on the next convention; additionally, a couple of times Hugo Awards have been officially created by the governing body only to be dropped a few years later. This list contains all of those, resulting in the catch-all title of "Other Hugo Awards" "Discontinued Hugo Awards". I hope you guys find this one as fine as the other 13 lists. Thanks for reviewing this and the other lists! --PresN 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Opposeuntil a decent name is found. This name is simply misleading. It could be "Hugo awards (minor awards)" or "Hugo Awards (deprecated categories)" or something more useful. Plus, the table section should be split into deprecated awards and those still being awarded. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the name itself kind of points out the fact that this might simply be a CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- A CFORK that is twice the length of the parent article (Hugo Awards), even after you pull the extra white space? I'm cool with a better name if one can be found; I don't think the two that you have work- Minor awards doesn't work because what makes these minor other than that they mainly aren't given any more? They're just as legitimate. And deprecated doesn't work, because Graphic Story is still ongoing- given the buzz around it the two years it's been up I fully expect it to get reupped in 2012. --PresN 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about "List of discontinued Hugo Awards"? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- Would work except that Graphic Story isn't discontinued, it's just only 2 years old. That's why I went with Other- the distinguishing feature was that they were all too short to stand on their own. --PresN 21:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- How about "List of discontinued Hugo Awards"? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- A CFORK that is twice the length of the parent article (Hugo Awards), even after you pull the extra white space? I'm cool with a better name if one can be found; I don't think the two that you have work- Minor awards doesn't work because what makes these minor other than that they mainly aren't given any more? They're just as legitimate. And deprecated doesn't work, because Graphic Story is still ongoing- given the buzz around it the two years it's been up I fully expect it to get reupped in 2012. --PresN 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Support I see no further problems. And yes, you win an award for "worst sentence ever constructed on Wikipedia". It's in the post... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
List of U.S. state horses
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I present the list of state horse breeds of the US for your consideration. I've been slowly working on this for the last few months, and recently took it to PR, where I received some helpful feedback. I'm not all that experienced with FLs, and this is quite different from the other two I have worked on, so I look forward to all of the comments. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - I had some pretty involved comments at the peer review and all of my concerns have since been addressed. I checked with the tools in the toolbox and there are no dab links and all the external links are live. Nicely done and meets the FL criteria. I do have have two quibbles, which do not detract from my support.
The Delaware quarter does not show any horse and rider, it shows Caesar Rodney on his horse.Can the table of proposed state horses be made the same width as the table of actual state horses? I do not think the table of symbols needs to be the same width as the others, but these two are in the same section and would look better if they were the same width.
Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support! I've tweaked the description of the Delaware quarter to include the name of the rider. On my screen, the two tables are the same width, so I'm not sure what you're seeing. I'm also not sure how I would go about forcing the tables to a certain size - coding tables is not my strong points :) Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- Support Full disclosure- I've done some tinkering with this list over the last month or so. Meets FL standards. Courcelles 18:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments –
|
Fantastic list - I have no problems with the main table but I am concerned with the State symbols section. While state quarters are representative of a state's culture, they are in no way official symbols of the state and are separate from the official breed designation. These are irrelevant to the article's purpose, especially for Delaware, where the depicted horse is coincidental and has nothing to do with a state symbol. Also, the Idaho license plate is just one of 38 specialty plates and is unconnected to the main list. Reywas92Talk 05:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, given that the Idaho license tag is fair-use and not totally necessary under NFCC 8, I think the image needs to go even if the item does not, non-free content in a list is fairly shaky. Courcelles 05:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the picture from the article. The list of Idaho license plates actually lists many of the specialty plates near the bottom of the article, the Appaloosa is just not part of the list for some reason, so I think that the link is relevant. As for the list, I think that it is also relevant. Three out of the six portray the official state breed/animal, while three of the six are issued by the state (license plate, flag, etc). Would it help if we renamed the section? Something like "state and federal symbols"? I think the introduction to the section makes it clear that these do not all portray official state horses/animals, and that they are not all official symbols, instead saying "emblem" and nothing about "official". However, if you think that more explanation is needed, I would love to hear your thoughts on it... Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the flag and seal are official state symbols, but the quarters are not "emblems of several states" as the section into says. They are not federal symbols or emblems either, they are unrelated things that happen to have horses. Delaware and Nevada do not appear anywhere else in the list; the horse is a common animal and coincidentally on the coins, not as a state symbol. I don't see how one of 38 specialty plates is relevant, much less a symbol or emblem. Perhaps these images could be included in the main table, but a separate section isn't appropriate for them. Reywas92Talk 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- They are emblems, though. An emblem is "an object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.;" per my dictionary. The coins are representations of the state's history. They are not official emblems, but they are emblems. They are also not unrelated - the Kentucky coin has an image of the state horse, which makes it completely related. The license plate is also an unofficial emblem, but is also completely related, as it shows the state horse. At this point, you are the only editor who believes the table should go, so unless more editors chime in with the same opinion, I am going to leave the table in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- The KY coin and ID plate are depictions of their designated equines and would fit in a section called something like "Other depictions of state horses". However, the Delaware and Nevada coins and the Pennsylvania flag do not have images of their state horses, not even having one! This article is about state horses, not generic horses that happen to be on state-related currency or insignia. The Washington quarter has a fish on it, but it has no place on the list of state fish. Reywas92Talk 22:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- They are emblems, though. An emblem is "an object or its representation, symbolizing a quality, state, class of persons, etc.;" per my dictionary. The coins are representations of the state's history. They are not official emblems, but they are emblems. They are also not unrelated - the Kentucky coin has an image of the state horse, which makes it completely related. The license plate is also an unofficial emblem, but is also completely related, as it shows the state horse. At this point, you are the only editor who believes the table should go, so unless more editors chime in with the same opinion, I am going to leave the table in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, the flag and seal are official state symbols, but the quarters are not "emblems of several states" as the section into says. They are not federal symbols or emblems either, they are unrelated things that happen to have horses. Delaware and Nevada do not appear anywhere else in the list; the horse is a common animal and coincidentally on the coins, not as a state symbol. I don't see how one of 38 specialty plates is relevant, much less a symbol or emblem. Perhaps these images could be included in the main table, but a separate section isn't appropriate for them. Reywas92Talk 00:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've removed the picture from the article. The list of Idaho license plates actually lists many of the specialty plates near the bottom of the article, the Appaloosa is just not part of the list for some reason, so I think that the link is relevant. As for the list, I think that it is also relevant. Three out of the six portray the official state breed/animal, while three of the six are issued by the state (license plate, flag, etc). Would it help if we renamed the section? Something like "state and federal symbols"? I think the introduction to the section makes it clear that these do not all portray official state horses/animals, and that they are not all official symbols, instead saying "emblem" and nothing about "official". However, if you think that more explanation is needed, I would love to hear your thoughts on it... Thank you, Dana boomer (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Was the question of the name of the article addressed? I know with the state dogs list, it started out as List of U.S. state dogs, but was requested to be changed to U.S. official state dogs during the FLN process. Should this article be renamed to U.S. official state horses? Miyagawa (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- I don't have a strong opinion in this matter. I like the "List of" name better, but that's just personal preference. If there is consensus here to change the name of the article, I have no problem with that, and will happily do the work. Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
List of Mir spacewalks
- Nominator(s): Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to put this list forward for consideration as a Featured List because I believe it cover the topic accurately & fully and meets the Featured List Criteria. I also believe I have dealt with all points raised in the closed peer review. It's very much based on the List of ISS spacewalks. Many thanks in advance to any reviewers! Colds7ream (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment An interesting list on an area I know very little about..
In the lead why is Extra-vehicular activities in bold?In the list is there any reason why the logical process of one sub head and table per year is not followed in 1987–1988? - you could easily put the three for 1987 in one table & the four for 1988 in a separate one.The tables for 1993 and 1998 are a different width than the others - any reason?In the references some of the isbns have multiple hyphens (eg 978-0-387-23011-5.) when others have single hyphens (eg 978-0071372305)?— Rod talk 17:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the review, glad you find it interesting! :-) In response to your questions, I emboldened EVAs after it was suggested in the peer review that 'List of Mir spacewalks' wasn't a good opening line, and I wanted to highlight the fact that the list concerns them; I've no major objections if you think it needn't be. I've split the 1987/1988 table up, but I think the table widths are due to the shorter lengths of the summaries in those tables; if you know of a way to force them to all display as the same width, I'd be very grateful. As for the ISBNs, I've simply entered them as I found them in the publications in question; again, if they need to be put in a standard format or something, I've no objections. Colds7ream (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think EVA should be bold according to the WP:MOS as it is a link to a different article. I have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (tables) but I'm sure there is a way of making them all the same width but suggest using % (eg 90% width) rather than number of pixels. I also spotted on this look that 1992 doesn't have a title for the Duration column which all the others do.— Rod talk 07:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- I've reformatted the ISBNs, and I believe the table merge has dealt with the column width issues. The link to EVA is no longer bold. Colds7ream (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Suggestion: try adding colors for the key to make the table a bit more appealing. Nergaal (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- What colour codes would you recommend? Colds7ream (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
- For † and * color the background of the "Mission" column. Also, I am not sure that splitting every year is ideal since it leaves the likes of EO-24 split over two tables. Can't you merge them? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Just completed the merge. I meant what hex codes would you suggest I use? Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- It's been suggested below that the fewer colours involved in the table, the more WP:ACCESSible it is? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just completed the merge. I meant what hex codes would you suggest I use? Colds7ream (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- For † and * color the background of the "Mission" column. Also, I am not sure that splitting every year is ideal since it leaves the likes of EO-24 split over two tables. Can't you merge them? Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments I have to say it's really good to see some niche lists here, welcome!
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Comment: Apologies for taking so long to look at your list, but I hope I can be helpful. Improving the accessibility of an article isn't an "all-or-nothing = pass/fail" process, so I hope you'll understand that my comments are mainly suggestions, not requirements for my support (apart from a couple of things like column headers and alternate text).
- All images have (copious) alt text, which work well with the captions. It is possible someone (not me) may think there is too much alt text, but the effort that has gone into this aspect is commendable.
There is always going to be a problem where information is being conveyed purely by visual means, so the use of symbols in the legend is good, but the † symbol is not very accessible, so you could improve that by using the {{†}} template, and giving it some alt text.The part about "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator" is problematical. If someone can't see the wide blue separator, then they will not get the information you intended them to receive. I don't know how to help you because I've followed the link to List of Mir Expeditions and read it; but I'm none the wiser about what a principal expedition is – or how it differs from a non-principal one. I can see that EO-2 and EO-3 are in a different group from EO-4 and EO-5, but I don't understand the significance; and a blind reader probably wouldn't even be able to get that far.The table itself needs some extra markup to identify at least the column headers, ! scope="col". See MOS:ACCESS#Data tables for the guidance.The table would benefit from extra markup to identify the row headers, ! scope="row". If you're unsure, I've made a short version of your table at User:RexxS/Mir spacewalks#Minimal markup, where I've stripped out all of the visual formatting and added the header markup, as well as the dagger template, so you can see what I've done.- In general, the simpler the structure and formatting, the more likely a table is to be both usable and accessible – but this is a suggestion, so you can ignore it without penalty if you don't like it.
If you'd like to try out any or all of these suggested changes (you really need to do the column headers), but are unsure, I'm happy to help – either in doing some for you, or in helping if you get into difficulties while trying them out. I know the reviewers here won't complain if the list gets a few edits as a result; improving accessibility doesn't reduce the stability of an article! Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look at this, and thank for your kind words on my alt text! I think I've sorted out the dagger signs, and the issue with the principal expeditions was because some of them disappeared. I've restored these, and clarified the description on the List of Mir Expeditions, so hopefully that makes more sense. I've also identified the columns (but how do I make the title row blue again?), but when I set the rows, the table displays weirdly, and I'd like to keep the description cells where they are, so how do I sort this out, please? Cheers, Colds7ream (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- The daggers are good, thank you.
- I can see now that each EO-X was a different principal mission, and so the separators are redundant. That means that a screen reader won't miss out on the information that is provided only by colour.
- The markup on the column headers is good - don't forget that they become bold and centred by default when they become headers.
- Why should the first row have a blue background? (It's the #CCCCFF that produces it.)
- I can't find the diff where you set the rows, so I can't tell how the table displays weirdly. Could you be a bit more specific about the problem you had? --RexxS (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
- This happens:
# | Mission | Spacewalkers | Start (UTC) | End (UTC) | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
rowspan=2 |1 | EO-2 EVA 1 ![]() |
Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin |
11 April 1987 19:41 |
11 April 1987 23:21 |
3 hours, 40 minutes |
Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.[1][2][3] |
-
-
- Distressingly, I can't seem to find a place to put it in the code which doesn't result in something similar? Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
-
# | Mission | Spacewalkers | Start (UTC) | End (UTC) | Duration |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | EO-2 EVA 1 ![]() |
Yury Romanenko Aleksandr Laveykin |
11 April 1987 19:41 |
11 April 1987 23:21 |
3 hours, 40 minutes |
Inspected the rear port of the core module following the failure of Kvant-1 to achieve a successful hard docking on 9 April and discovered a piece of debris left behind following the departure of Progress 28 on 27 March. This was removed, and the subsequent hard docking of the new module was observed.[1][2][3] |
-
-
-
- Rowspan and scope are both attributes of the tag, so there's no '|' between them. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- How's that looking? I must say, this FLC is turning out to be great - friendly help and advice from everyone and a tutorial on properly coding tables! The FAC people could learn a lot from you folks! Colds7ream (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rowspan and scope are both attributes of the tag, so there's no '|' between them. --RexxS (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
-
-
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Support. It looks good to me. All of the accessibility issues are resolved as far as I can tell. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Question – I see that much of the list is cited to Encyclopedia Astronautica. This is a site whose reliability has been questioned at FAC before, and it was removed from the International Space Station article before it was promoted. Why should it be considered a reliable source when it hasn't been proven reliable at other major content processes? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, User:MBK004 said here that the website is recommended by NASA's own PAO. On the other hand, the table happily stands on the other references, so if people massively object it can be removed pretty much with impunity. Colds7ream (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would say remove it. If there's any doubt, and the table is fully backed by other sources anyway, that seems to me to be the best thing to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to argue for keeping it, partly because I personally believe in its reliability, and partly because the other sources are books which will be unavailable to the vast majority of readers - having this website available allows them to check things. Colds7ream (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would say remove it. If there's any doubt, and the table is fully backed by other sources anyway, that seems to me to be the best thing to do. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
- In intro: is "non-monolithic" the same as "modular design"?
-
- Yes, but I can't think of a better way to word it. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What is a 3rd generation space station (or what are 1st/2nd gen.)?
-
- 1st & 2nd were monolithic, 3rd non-monolithic. The space station article needs work to support this. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Should "deorbit" be linked to Deorbit of Mir?
-
- Yes, done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Was "technologies required for the permanent occupation of space" the only research interest on Mir?
- Is the boldfacing of "Mir" and "Spacewalks" (separated by a paragraph) according to the MOS? I don't think boldfacing of the title (or parts of title) is required or even desired in featured lists.
I don't understand the "but" in the sentence "The longest EVA was performed on 17 July 1990, when EO-6 crewmembers Anatoly Solovyev and Aleksandr Balandin left the station to repair their spacecraft, Soyuz TM-9, but encountered difficulties shutting the airlock hatch upon their return."
-
- Replaced with 'then'. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not sure the sentence "EVAs conducted during different principal expeditions are indicated by a wide blue separator." is clear (but I am not a native reader/speaker). Possibly something like "EVAs conducted by different principal expeditions are separated by a ..." would be more clear.
-
- Done. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can "hard docking" be wikilinked or explained (in footnote or text) or is it obvious?
Why is the legend repeated after the table?
-
- Removed. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Why are there always two spacewalkers? Were they walking at the same time? Were they exiting/entering together? Can this be discussed in the intro?
- References 1 and 2 seem to reference almost all spacewalks and should probably be made into general references.
- References 1 and 8 need accessdates.
- In which way is ref 5 used?
- Is ref 6 part of ref 3 and is ref 7 part of ref 4?
-
- Yes. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Book references should have page numbers IMHO.
- What do "EO" and "STS" in the mission names stand for?
-
- экспедиция основная (mission primary) and Space Transportation System. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Are the images at the bottom, the only images we have of Mir spacewalks?
-
- Yep. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- OK, just wondered whether we could have images for every table entry, i.e. inside the table. Since there are so few, that does not make much sense. I think image galleries are somewhat discouraged in featured content, but here it looks good and adds nicely to the table in my opinion. bamse (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
bamse (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Replied to some, working on others. Colds7ream (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
List of Chicago White Sox first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
For those of you that may not be fans of this baseball group, this is part 30 of 31, so worry not, we are just about done. For the rest of you, I present the Chicago White Sox draft pick list. They are actually one of the more successful teams draft-wise; 2/3 of their draft picks have made a major league roster, and one of them just won a World Series ring, though it was not exactly thanks to him.
I think I've earned a milkshake break. While I get one go ahead and comment :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment
- Images would benefit from alt text. Otherwise, the article is well marked up to maximise accessibility. I know nothing of the subject, so I had to follow a lot of links, but the balance is good between links and in-text explanations. Overall, it is an interesting read, well-referenced (if somewhat reliant on a major source), and visually appealing. --RexxS (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know much of anything about alt text, and it's not required, so I won't worry about it unless someone else wants to add it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Courcelles 04:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. I don't know much of anything about alt text, and it's not required, so I won't worry about it unless someone else wants to add it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment One quick thing, Frank Thomas should be linked the first time in the lead like the others. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 08:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
|
- Support Courcelles 01:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments – Just a couple of small ones...
Comma after Jack McDowell would be nice in the lead.In the key, an apostrophe should be added after White Sox in the championship definition.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)- Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support – Issues are resolved, and it's another great list in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Both taken care of. Courcelles 03:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Comment
- Perhaps I missed this on (all of ??) the other lists but I think left/right handed pitchers should sort by pitcher, not by l for left or r for right. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you. In which case, I support the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's been that way on all of them. I figured out how to make them sort as pitchers, but the lefties first, then the righties, so it should be good now. Courcelles 03:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Same as above FLC: it would be nice to have some quantification of a first round pick vs other rounds by say looking at the average salaries. Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've been having a good read, and, yes, it does appear that you have asked for original research to be inserted into three articles, Nergaal. This isn't the NBA, which has a fairly strict scale where your salary for the first few years depends on where you were drafted. Courcelles 08:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- And then? Draw our own conclusions? Looks like WP:OR to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments from KV5
- Alt-text: remove periods/full stops from sentence fragments, one image is missing alt-text. Also, I'm not sure about the usefulness of the alt text. I hate to be a stickler, but how does a person who can't see know what "Frank Thomas, smiling and holding a red cup" looks like?
- Superscript § indicator since it's at cap height.
- Unspace the asterisks.
Other than these (admittedly very minor) comments, I can't find anything else to quibble with. — KV5 • Talk • 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. I'm not a fan of alt text myself and would have kept it out, but was requested earlier in the FLC. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- What's the problem? WP:ALTTEXT gives the example of File:Blair Bush Whitehouse (2004-11-12).jpg's appropriate alt text being "Tony Blair and George W. Bush shaking hands at a press conference."- using their names. Courcelles 11:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- All of the alt text, save for the lead image, still utilizes player names, which doesn't really tell a blind reader what the picture looks like. Anderson still doesn't have alt text. I have to leave for work now, but after work tonight, I can re-do the alt text in the interest of getting from FLC to FTC. — KV5 • Talk • 11:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough, went ahead and fixed that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- It may be just me but why wouldn't something like "A bald black man in a vertically striped shirt, facing left, smiling and holding a mug" be of use to a blind person? Putting people's names in the alt text is a bit of a waste of time, particularly as his name is already mentioned in the caption. I know the subtleties of alt text leave most people cold, but I've always thought it better to have some rather than none. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support Forgot I never actually weighed in after my initial comment! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Well as it turned out, my last FL candidate (which is still waiting for more reviewers; First Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union) was not my last FL Soviet-topic candidate. --TIAYN (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
*Comments
|
Support after done now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments –
- Done
Excess "the" needs removal in "were obliged by protocol to rule the country the in the same way as Brezhnev had." - Done
Konstantin Chemenko: Hyphen in "72-years old" should be removed as well. - Done
Not a big deal, but the dash in Vladimir Ivashko's picture column would look nicer if it was centered.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
- Support
Comment Three links in the See also section are already in the {{Soviet Union topics}} template, the other three links should be in that template. Move the other three links to the aforementioned template and remove the See also section.--Cheetah (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
List of U.S. Women's Open (golf) champions
- Nominator(s): SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria listed. SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 23:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Jujutacular talk 20:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Oppose a quick pass
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC) |
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments – A long list below, but this is an event that I enjoy watching (especially last year) and a list that I want to see reach the highest quality possible.
|
- Support - looks good to me now. Jujutacular talk 01:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- Support
CommentsThe sortability of the "total score" is not working because of the 5&4 score.The Key section applies to the champions' table only. Why not move the key to the Champions section?The first key and the second key should look similar. Right now, the first one is in 2 columns and the second column is not colored while the second key is a one column with the whole row colored.The symbols should be different. Right now Deceased golfer and Tournament won in a playoff is marked with †. That's confusing.
--Cheetah (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- As the editor has not edited for over a week I have decided to address these issues. NapHit (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks NapHit for fixing them during my absence from Wikipedia.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Nominations for removal
List of Oz books
- Notified: Novels, Children's literature, Books
I am nominating this for featured list removal because of its massive amount of unreferenced sections in the article as the links in the "Reference" section aren't even in-line citations. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delist Not one inline citation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes
- Notified:WikiProject Anime and manga
I believe the sources are inadequate and that this list no longer means FL standards. Source 1 is outdated and the source for the airdates is linked to a steaming website which I do not believe is reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why? --Malkinann (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The first reference is a dead link. SurfTheChannel does not seem reliable. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comments The Wayback Machine only has an archive of the now-dead webpage when it was "under construction", so a new source needs to be found. I am somewhat dubious of SurfTheChannel. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
List of Jewish Medal of Honor recipients
- Notified: Kumioko, WP:MILHIST, WP:BIO
I anticipate this to be a problematic candidate but here are the issues I found:
- the intro is completely inadequate; not only it is short, but it talks about racial discrimination... when being Jewish has nothing to do with race
- the first two sections are curiously not very well linked with eachother, which points towards the real problem:
- this list is OR, because while it lists individuals who received the award, the Jewish part is debatable at least. There have been some AfDs a few months ago with regards to "list of Jews" type ones, and the major issue was that while somebody may be able to show their ancestry, there is nothing in terms of references to show that these people practice Jewish customs, or eve care about their ancestry.
- Race is a more clear-cut division, but ethnicity, and especially Jewish ones, are extremely tricky. Yeah, such a list could be featured, but this one in specific is nowhere near close at not raising some eyebrows.
Nergaal (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Nergaal correctly identifies his nomination as problematic. He would do well, if in his personal subjective opinion is that the lede would be better if made longer (his very first bullet), to follow wp:sofixit, as long as his edits conform with consensus. I'll be happy to work with him in that regard. His second bullet is not an issue for here either. His third bullet is baseless -- if he were right, we would not have any references to Jews on wikipedia at all ... whether or not that is his preference, that is not how wp operates, as he may be aware if he has been involved in discussion of these issues elsewhere. His fourth bullet -- Tricky, tricky ... -- fails for the same reason as the third bullet. The third and fourth bullets are reminiscent of the arguments he raised that were rejected in his failed deletion effort at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Nobel laureates, and should fail here for the same reason that they failed there.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment For all but three of the recipients this source [7] lists them as Jewish recipients of the medal of honour, so I don't think its OR. Bob House 884 (talk) 01:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment from Kumioko
While I disagree that this list lacks the qualities necessary to be a Featured list I think some of your comments have some merit and I will work to improve the list over the next couple days. I do disagree that its OR. There are references for each of the individuals that identify them as being Jewish and I will try and incorporate them. I will also try to make the sections flow a little better as is the case of some of the other recipient lists. I partially disagree about the comments relating to the race and ethnicity. There has been quite a lot of documentation regarding persecution and prejudice towards Jews and regardless of whether its a racial issue or not I think the separation into its own list is fair. --Kumioko (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Needs some work for FA - Will this help??Moxy (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Brody, Seymour (2003), Jewish heroes & heroines of America: 151 true stories of Jewish American heroism, Frederick Fell Publishers, ISBN 0883910268, http://books.google.ca/books?id=LADOUweLXPsC&lpg=PA268&dq=Jewish%20Medal%20of%20Honor%20recipients&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q&f=false
- Scharfstein, Sol (1997), Chronicle of Jewish History: From the Patriarchs to the 21st Century, KTAV Pub. House, p. 320, ISBN 0881255602, http://books.google.ca/books?id=PrAdxFjB7k4C&pg=PT15&dq=Jewish+Medal+of+Honor+recipients&hl=en&ei=R8yjTfarApLogQf82ciwCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
- McTernan, John P (2008), As America Has Done to Israel, Xulon Press, p. 72, ISBN 9781600345456, http://books.google.ca/books?id=I7B1Q0pqegUC&pg=PA72&dq=Jewish+Medal+of+Honor+recipients&hl=en&ei=wMyjTfefGIWtgQfjuKCxCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Can I get an update on this nomination please? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- When you say update, what would you like to know. I have already made a few fixes and I just got the Book by Brody in the Mail so I can start looking through that for referencable material. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- I understand you're doing what you need to do which is good, I wanted to know from the nominator how he felt too. We can't have an FLRC hanging around for too long. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
List of Alberta general elections
- Notified: Tompw, WikiProject Canada
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it lacks citations and the table is not quite as informative as one might expect from a FL. Nergaal (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC) |
---|
Comments
Currently it's a delist for me, but hopefully fixes can be made. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The graph is simply the main table presented in an alternate format, so I don't see a WP:ACCESS issue there. The main table, properly formated, removes all such concerns. That said, there is a lack of referencing for the body, and the body itself could be expanded significantly. I'm inclined to agree with a delist at this point. Resolute 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Further comments - delist still not good enough for me.
The Rambling Man (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘ |
- OK, I think I have dealt with all your points except the one about the graph. (Let me know if you disagree). I am stumped by what should be done to the graph - can you say exactly what should changed? Tompw (talk) (review) 21:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- The list is still extremely thin on the references side. Nergaal (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment very much improved. There's still Nergaal's issue about light referencing, and I'd prefer to see the years unbolded, along with the Coalition relinked on every line (to the appropriate page of course) as the table is sortable, but these, in my mind, are relatively minor. Good work to 117Avenue and Tompw. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- Everything has been referenced, unless you have a specific example? 117Avenue (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
- I've added fact tags where there is a blatant need for a ref. Still, the intro needs some more expansion. THe table should also have a total seats column. Nergaal (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a ref for the Lieutenant Governor, the other facts can be verified with the cited data, and does not need a ref per WP:CALC. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sure what is the point for this edit. I've placed [citation needed] tags which you simply removed. I am not sure this type of unfriendly fixes are the solution out of a FLRC. Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- What is it that you are questioning?
- I am not sure what is the point for this edit. I've placed [citation needed] tags which you simply removed. I am not sure this type of unfriendly fixes are the solution out of a FLRC. Nergaal (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- I have added a ref for the Lieutenant Governor, the other facts can be verified with the cited data, and does not need a ref per WP:CALC. 117Avenue (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
- Does the Lieutenant Governor call the election? Yes, I have provided a reference saying so.
- Does an election typically get called in the fourth or fifth year? Yes, take a look at the spacing of the elections, which are verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
- Did the first election elect 25 seats? Yes, 22 Liberal, 3 Conservative, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
- Was the first election in 1905? Yes, as verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
- Did the last election elect 83 seats? Yes, 72 PC, 9 Liberal, 2 NDP, verified by the Elections Alberta reference.
- Did the number of seats increase over time? Yes, 83 is more than 25, and a graphical summary of all elections shows an upward trend.
- Has the province been ruled by four "dynasties"? Yes, Liberal (1905–1921), United Farmers (1921–1935), Social Credit (1935–1971), and Progressive Conservative (1971 to present), were the winners according to the winners column, which can be verified by the big numbers in the referenced data, and the graphical summary, with no party winning an election after losing their "dynasty".
- Has no minority government ever been elected? Correct, the winning party has always been elected to more than half of the seats, as verified by the referenced data, and the graphical summary. The winning numbers were bolded, but it was suggested here to keep them unbolded.
- Can it be said that Alberta has continuously had a dominant-party system for its entire political history? Yes, see previous bullet.
- Can it be said that the dominant party has changed over time? Yes, see dynasties bullet.
-
-
- Did I miss any? 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then why isn't the text referenced accordingly if the refs exist? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The intro shouldn't have a lot of references, per WP:LEADCITE, it would just be repeating the same citation. The intro is a summary of the following article. 117Avenue (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Then why isn't the text referenced accordingly if the refs exist? Nergaal (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Did I miss any? 117Avenue (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Keep The referencing issues seem to have been cleared up. I just have a few comments:
-
The final paragraph of the lead is a bit redundant as it just reads out the key.Could you put refs 4 and 5 in the table header?- Are there any voter turnout stats?
Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- How should the graph be addressed in the prose, or does it need to be mentioned at all? The Rambling Man suggested that the references be spread through out the article. I could only see turnout back to 1979, are you suggesting another column? 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think the graph needs to be mentioned in prose at all. I can't see TRM's comment about spreading refs, and I think that placing them in the header would make it easier to read. Yes, I was suggesting another column for turnout - it is quite a major factor in elections. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 31 March comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think so...I still don't see it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- How is it? I had some difficulty getting the new column to sort correctly. 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- It sorts fine for me. Is that all the turnout data available? Surely there is more? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find it through Elections Alberta, and by the looks of Election by the Numbers it may not be possible. 117Avenue (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK, but there may be a book somewhere which has such information. Maybe ask at WP:ALBERTA. Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I couldn't find it through Elections Alberta, and by the looks of Election by the Numbers it may not be possible. 117Avenue (talk) 08:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- It sorts fine for me. Is that all the turnout data available? Surely there is more? Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- How is it? I had some difficulty getting the new column to sort correctly. 117Avenue (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- I think so...I still don't see it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am misinterpreting the 31 March comments. 117Avenue (talk) 06:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think the graph needs to be mentioned in prose at all. I can't see TRM's comment about spreading refs, and I think that placing them in the header would make it easier to read. Yes, I was suggesting another column for turnout - it is quite a major factor in elections. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Municipalities of Lithuania
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is poorly referenced. It has only one source in the reference section, and one note. Eisfbnore talk 20:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- Unfortunately, the single reference is to the search page. Users have to enter the search parameters manually to access the information. It would be advantageous to use other sources (such as the CIA book, or even something in Lithuanian would be okay) besides this one. If this information truly is not available, well, the reference used does actually source all information in the table so it's not that big of a deal that it's the only one we have for the table.
- Some of the Lede has information that isn't found in the table. These things should be sourced:
- "there are 43 district municipalities that roughly correspond to districts that existed under the Soviet rule." should be sourced
- "The special status of Visaginas city municipality (based on the 13th largest city) can be explained by the fact that the majority of the residents are Russians."
- " Palanga city municipality is called this despite actually including a group of popular sea resorts rather than a single city." etc
- The reference has updated population and population density figures for 2010, and our table should be updated to reflect that
- Many of the images of the coats of arms have .png and .svg alternatives which should be used instead of the .gifs
The article really isn't that bad, so hopefully it can be saved. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- First of all, there should be two articles, one called municipalities of Lithuania, which is a general discussion of the local government and geographical subdivision, and one article, list of municipalities of Lithuania, which actually lists all of them.
- Population needs updating
- The prose is below featured standards, with many grammatical and not least punctuational oddities.
- I would liked to have seen the municipality column only list the name, and then make a second column with "district", "city" or "municipality", which would allow the reader to sort by type.
- I'm not convinced if we need to include rank columns, as the table is sortable, and the reader will get a pretty good idea of how the municipality is ranked.
- The lead is entirely unreferenced.
- The reference provided is perhaps okay, as it is fairly straight-forward to get out numbers.
- Footnoted comments and references are mixed.
- To ease readability, the numbers should be right-aligned.
Arsenikk (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
-
-
- See article for lead rewrite, reference additions, separation of notes and references. I agree with the addition of a 'type' column, we could remove the ranking of density to make way for it. I rather like the rankings in general, but would defer to a consensus for removal. As far as right-alignment of numbers, I'm not seeing that in the other FLs I checked (e.g. List of tallest buildings in Chicago). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
-
- Delist unless much better referenced. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've requested three books from the local library system. They will arrive at my branch within a few days, hopefully they'll offer some useful stuff. Additionally, an IP posted on the talk page of this nomination that people may have missed:
Hello. I'm lithuanian moderator Profcard in Wikimapia project. Sadly wikipedia contains poor information. Unfortunately, I had to write municipality short description in wikimapia myself. I permit using english text of municipalities (from wikimapia, as I'm only author) if this helped to keep this feature from failure here. Just note full wikimapia.org link that people would found box with descriptions by few clicks. Contact me in wikimapia if there'll be questions.
-
- Two of the books I ordered came in. They don't really have the information we need for this page. :( Matthewedwards : Chat 19:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I think this list should discuss counties also, which would mean have another table with area/population/etc of counties and rename the article to "Municipalities and Counties of Lithuania". Nergaal (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I will try to see what can be done to address the issues. (Sorry for a late reaction -- it was on my mental to do list, but I forgot about it until it popped up on my watchlist today again). Renata (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some questions - one, do these sorts of articles need to be updated annually to maintain featured status? (the current population stats are from 2008). Two, another editor has called for a separate, stand-alone article; do other editors see it as a prerequisite to Featured List status? Clearly one could be written here, but I don't see it in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Three, I'd like to ask for an extension to the review period of about a week - any objections? Novickas (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question for other reviewers how is this list not a content fork of the counties list, Counties of Lithuania (or the other way around?)? This has 60 entries while the counties has 10. And it's not like either of these lists has any extra information asides from the tables (like historical issues). Being such a small country, I don't see why there is a need for two FLs. Nergaal (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good point. Given that the combined size is about 30kb, they're strong candidates for a merge into Counties and municipalities of Lithuania. —WFC— 12:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)- For the record, I know this is the oldest current FLRC, but work is ongoing, so I'm very happy to see it carry on for a while. —WFC— 15:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- This one does have some historical info now. Could you explain why you see the counties list as a content fork? Counties and munis are quite separate. (LT counties are not just an aggregation of munis, their governors are appointed by the central govt, among other differences). Novickas (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Can I get a status update? The list hasn't been edited in about two weeks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- I'm sorry for missing it. My main concern about referencing has been solved, but I'll let other editors answer about content forking. Eisfbnore talk 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- My concern about forking has been dealt with; the only thing now is that the lead itself needs to explain (in a roundabout way) what is significant and distinct about municipalities. As far as I can tell, all actional comments have been responded to (not necessarily resolved, but the balls are in the reviewers' courts), and no fresh ones have been made. That said, work has stopped and at a glance I don't think this is quite ready to be kept, so I'll do a brief review. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for missing it. My main concern about referencing has been solved, but I'll let other editors answer about content forking. Eisfbnore talk 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments from WFC
I'm going to give the lead a go myself over the next day or so. I'm not an expert, but I've got a reasonable idea of how to structure it.- Okay, I've tweaked the lead's structure, adding in a few basic facts based on the country's article. I'll dig for sources tomorrow and make any corrections if someone else doesn't beat me to it.
- I think we need a paragraph (probably between the current first and second paragraph), explaining what municipalities actually do. At the moment we are listing a political subdivision, but not explaining why this level of subdivision is distinct or significant from the ones above and below. If a paragraph of this nature is added, it would further improve the lead, and dispel any lingering concerns over whether this is a fork. —WFC— 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
The referencing situation appears worrying at a glance, but isn't a big deal. You don't need many references to verify this entire list. However, all reference dates should be formatted in the same way (whichever date format you like, as long as it's consistent), and ref 8 is a footnote, and should therefore have its own area.I see no point at all to the rank columns, given that the table is sortable. Furthermore, by removing these columns, there would be space to add in a column for individual maps (such as File:Varena district location.png).
At a glance this list appears to be in worse shape than it really is. I'll do what I can with the lead, and then we'll take it from there. —WFC— 00:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
-
- Fixed footnote 8. Removed rank columns (these pre-dated sortable tables) and hacked something to replace them. I do believe having ranks provides very useful info. I do not believe adding locator maps is wise -- they will be either too small to be useful or the table will balloon. Renata (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unconventional looking, but the principles behind that hack are an excellent compromise. —WFC— 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like work is ongoing. Can someone ping me on my talk when the remaining issues are addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- ...and now it's been four weeks since the article was last edited. I don't want to delist this article given the effort put in, but if no further activity occurs, I may have no other choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Looks like work is ongoing. Can someone ping me on my talk when the remaining issues are addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Unconventional looking, but the principles behind that hack are an excellent compromise. —WFC— 09:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed footnote 8. Removed rank columns (these pre-dated sortable tables) and hacked something to replace them. I do believe having ranks provides very useful info. I do not believe adding locator maps is wise -- they will be either too small to be useful or the table will balloon. Renata (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comments There's a couple of "bugs" still, but overall there's been some great work from everyone who edited this article. Nominator's issues seem resolved, as are mine (mostly, see below) and most everyone else's, too.
- Lead is good, but one question: why when translating the words for "counties", "municipalities" and "elderships" is the singular for counties given first, but plural version for municipalities and elderships?
- No link to the article "municipality". Since it has different meanings to people in different parts of the world, linking, or explaining exactly what a municipality is or equivalent to (town, city?) would help. As would explaining briefly what an eldership is (Similar to a village or hamlet perhaps?)
- The colours on that map need toning down a bit. The colours for Klaipeda, Vilnius, Alytus and Utena are horrendous against the black text and make it hard to read (paste the article's URL into the field at http://colorfilter.wickline.org/?j=1;t=a and then when the results page loads, click a few different variations in the Green box. Nice soft pastel colours like those at Help:Using colours would be an improvement.
- Earlier in the nomination I was asked to explain why .png format is more desirable than gif or jpeg for the shields, and/or to link to a WP guideline on this. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format. However, while this should be done, it's not something that any of the Featured list criteria ask for, so it won't stop it being kept in the end.
Almost ready to say "keep". Matthewedwards : Chat 04:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments –
- Soviet Socialist Republic doesn't need to be linked twice in the lead.
- Check the sorting of the second, third, and fourth columns. The diacritics that some of the places begin their names with are causing them to sort after those that start with the regular (English) alphabet, when they should be sorting with their respective letters. May need sorting templates to fix this one.
- The general reference should be formatted with the same information as an inline citation, not as a bare external link. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- The references are not a big issue anymore, but I am still not sure we need both a "municipalities" and a "counties" FL when they overlap so much. Nergaal (talk) 01:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
-
- Weak Keep – The citations have been improved, which were the issue I started this FLRC with. However, I'm not sure if there is a consensus on merging or not merging this list with Counties of Lithuania. I hope that issue will be solved before the closing of this FLRC --Eisfbnore talk 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delist unless concerns have now been addressed. It's been nearly four months, and while these can last as long as needed, 4 months is pushing it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}}
template or a <references />
tag; see the help page.