|
Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia  Welcome to featured list candidates! 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 must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those 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 at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened 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 a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates 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 Purge the cache to refresh this page – 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 urgently needing reviews
The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:
Source reviews needed
The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: |
Nominations
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 17 August 2010 [1].
List of Watford F.C. seasons
- Nominator(s): User:WFCforLife, User:HornetEd and User:Bazj
In short, I think this is the best list I have ever been involved with. Although I have made the most edits, I can only take credit for reducing redlinks, writing the lead and minor cleanup. The true credit for this gem should go to HornetEd, for his collosal effort in creating the thing from scratch. I've also listed Bazj; he added the scorers and did the lions share of the sourcing. I believe that this is only the second fully sortable seasons list, building upon the good work done in List of Nelson F.C. seasons. I humbly submit this for review. Regards, --WFC-- 07:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't see any problems; the list appears to meet the FL criteria. Always good to see some more football lists, and I especially like the sortability present here (although as the creator of List of Nelson F.C. seasons, I would do). BigDom 08:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Pity you didn't take it to peer review first, most of this is trivial stuff that could have been cleared up there.
- In my defence I nearly did. I changed my mind because I felt any issues, however numerous, would be relatively minor. That and a hit-miss experience of PRs for lists in the past. Sometimes FLCs fail due to lack of reviews, but never due to none.
| Resolved comments from Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Elton John appointed Graham Taylor as what?
|
- Sorting. Nominator and I differ on the value of sorting a season list. However, if it is to be sorted, it should work, and it should be helpful to the reader per FL criterion 4.
- You make some fair points below. As for criteria 4, I question how a sortable table could be failed on that point by a reviewer who would not object to a completely unsortable table.
- Don't get me wrong, If consensus is that sorting a season list is a good thing, I wouldn't oppose on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT grounds. But until the Wikipedia sort function can cope with a complex table like a seasons list, including content like secondary league detail appearing in the league tables section, or multiple cup competitions in one season (which Watford haven't got, at least in the league era, but many clubs have), I genuinely don't see that adding sortability is helpful to the reader. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having the pre-league and league eras in separate tables means the club's FA Cup achievements can't be sorted together.
- In an unsortable table, a pre-league/league split would be both logical and aesthetically preferable. To do as you suggest in a sortable table would mean introducing a lot more of those dashes, for a minimal benefit that your next comment calls into question anyway.
- "logical and aesthetically preferable", not convinced, sorry. But this point is independent of my next comment. If you think it helpful to the reader to make the FA Cup column sortable, then it doesn't seem particularly helpful to split that column into two bits depending on whether the club was playing league football or not. Though I do see that combining the tables might make sorting some of the rest of it rather messy. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The dash issue has been fixed, so this is technically possible. I'm still firmly of the opinion that it would be undesirable though. Once the FA Cup and division issues are sorted I'll demonstrate this with an edit, enabling other reviewers to look at both versions and express their preferences. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "logical and aesthetically preferable", not convinced, sorry. But this point is independent of my next comment. If you think it helpful to the reader to make the FA Cup column sortable, then it doesn't seem particularly helpful to split that column into two bits depending on whether the club was playing league football or not. Though I do see that combining the tables might make sorting some of the rest of it rather messy. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In an unsortable table, a pre-league/league split would be both logical and aesthetically preferable. To do as you suggest in a sortable table would mean introducing a lot more of those dashes, for a minimal benefit that your next comment calls into question anyway.
- The same would apply to name of Division. You've gone part-way on this, sorting the Premier League to the top by value rather than alphabetical name. But Division 1 until 1991/92 was the top level of the system, and between 1992/93 and 2003/04 it was the second level, yet you sort them together.
- This I agree with. Furthermore I agree that this is exclusive to sortable tables, as non-sortable tables can use one footnote in the 1992/93 season to cover it. I'll have a think about how to do this, but rest assured that I'm on it.
- It's genuinely irritating that the full-width colspanned lines come to the top as soon as you try to sort something
- Answered below.
- There are some peculiarities in the sorting. E.g. if the table is initially sorted on Division ascending, with the colspan lines at the top, and you then sort on one of the league table numeric columns, say Goals For, the 1945/46 row comes to the top, then the colspan rows, and only then the first row with any numeric content in Goals For. Sort again, so the Goals For is in descending order, 1945/46 with its emdashes stays at the top and the colspan rows disappear down the bottom. Sort again, so the Goals For returns to ascending order, the colspan rows return to the top, but 1945/46 disappears to the bottom. Stabilising at these last two orderings. Except, sometimes you start with Division ascending, sort on Goals For, and it brings the first row with numeric content to the top, and then goes through the cycle described above... This behaviour is the same on 3 different browsers: IE6, Firefox3.6 and GoogleChrome5.0
- In mathematical logic, we would describe the colspan and emdash rows as "don't care states". In plain English, provided that they do not interfere with our main aim, we disregard them. Aesthetically questionable? Perhaps. But they would still look ugly wherever they went. For the values that matter the sort function is robust here.
- If you want to take the last two comments together, I'll answer here. In plain English, if a row comes to the top when a column is sorted ascending, and stays at the top when the same column is sorted descending, then the sort doesn't work. That is what happens with the 1945/46 row in the cycle described above. We're not presenting to logicians. We're presenting to the general reader, and if the general reader sorts a column and gets presented with a wodge of colspanned text bars when they're expecting goals scored, they're not going to be overly impressed with what purports to be Wikipedia's best work. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm 80% sure that the irregularities with 1939/40 and 1945/46 are now fixed. I can only vouch for that on Firefox though; I didn't try this earlier due to this being a live DYK, and having no way to test it on Internet Explorer. As for the colspans, it is possible for me to configure them so that they display as the lowest or highest value for any given row (i.e. I can make it sort as A in one row, Z in another, A in a third and so on). AFAIK, the only way to truly exclude them from sorting would be not to have a year next to them, which would in turn mean that once you started sorting they would never return to their original position.
- It seems that with some homework on my part, and potentially third party input on the 1896 split, we can achieve consensus on all of your other points. But I think that four or five colspans sorting in an irritating way would not on its own be a good enough reason to scrap sortability. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
class=sortbottomsorts one or more rows to the bottom, but again, they won't come back unless you refresh the page. Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- That's the issue. While I do understand your point, sortbottom would do more harm than good, due to the colspans not sorting by year. I've made them less prominent, and am doing some work to mitigate how annoying they are (for instance ensuring that when sorting by goals scored, they sort as the lowest tally), but unfortunately they'll have to remain sortable. --WFC-- 18:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to take the last two comments together, I'll answer here. In plain English, if a row comes to the top when a column is sorted ascending, and stays at the top when the same column is sorted descending, then the sort doesn't work. That is what happens with the 1945/46 row in the cycle described above. We're not presenting to logicians. We're presenting to the general reader, and if the general reader sorts a column and gets presented with a wodge of colspanned text bars when they're expecting goals scored, they're not going to be overly impressed with what purports to be Wikipedia's best work. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In mathematical logic, we would describe the colspan and emdash rows as "don't care states". In plain English, provided that they do not interfere with our main aim, we disregard them. Aesthetically questionable? Perhaps. But they would still look ugly wherever they went. For the values that matter the sort function is robust here.
- You make some fair points below. As for criteria 4, I question how a sortable table could be failed on that point by a reviewer who would not object to a completely unsortable table.
- If the point of sorting the FA Cup column is to compare achievement in different periods, sorting by name of round doesn't do it, because it takes no account of what that round actually was. E.g. in 1904/5, there were four rounds between QR6 and the final, in 1919/20 there were five. In 1905/6, Round 2 was the round of 32, so there were three rounds between it and the final; today, the round of 32 is Round 4, and there are five rounds between Round 2 and the final ...
- I understand how sorting has brought this issue to the fore, when it might not have been thought of in the past. But surely that would be an issue for all seasons lists?
- Indeed. And it has been thought of in the past, to some extent: e.g. at List of Darlington F.C. seasons, not a featured list, where note D clarifies Darlington's best FA Cup progress was to the last 16, linked from rounds of different names. But in an unsortable table, it's easier to accept that those are just the names of rounds; when sorted, it heightens the perception that all Round 2s are the same thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in sorting them together. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously from the quarter-finals onward this isn't an issue. Further back, perhaps "Round of 16", "Round of 32" or "Last 16", "Last 32" would be better terminology, with some introductory or supplementary prose to explain the situation? That said, I would need to verify this in some way. At the moment I have verification that Watford reached the fifth round in 1995, but not that this was the last 16. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FA's FA Cup archive will verify each season. Thing is, today there are 40 teams in the Second Round proper and 80 in the First, the Round of powers-of-2 only comes in at the Third Round proper aka Round of 64. In the very early days of the competition, numbers of teams in any given round was pretty random. In between, I've no idea. So calling rounds Last 128 is probably more misleading than calling everything Round 2..... Don't know where that gets you. Input from more voices would be nice :-) Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously from the quarter-finals onward this isn't an issue. Further back, perhaps "Round of 16", "Round of 32" or "Last 16", "Last 32" would be better terminology, with some introductory or supplementary prose to explain the situation? That said, I would need to verify this in some way. At the moment I have verification that Watford reached the fifth round in 1995, but not that this was the last 16. --WFC-- 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. And it has been thought of in the past, to some extent: e.g. at List of Darlington F.C. seasons, not a featured list, where note D clarifies Darlington's best FA Cup progress was to the last 16, linked from rounds of different names. But in an unsortable table, it's easier to accept that those are just the names of rounds; when sorted, it heightens the perception that all Round 2s are the same thing, otherwise there wouldn't be any point in sorting them together. Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand how sorting has brought this issue to the fore, when it might not have been thought of in the past. But surely that would be an issue for all seasons lists?
- As I see it, with the resources we have there are three broad options:
- 1. Do nothing in the table, explain where Watford entered the competition in a footnote: At first glance the lazy option, although I do think that a case can be made for it. In every season that we reached the fifth round, the sixth round was the quarter final. In every season that we reached the fourth round, either the fifth round was the quarter final, or the fourth round was below the fifth round (in other words, they belong alongside one another, albeit one was slightly closer to winning the competition than the other). The footnote would have to be very carefully considered, but this is potentially the way to go, and should not be dismissed out of hand.
- 2. Sort by distance from final The FA Cup archive does not allow me to say that Watford were one of the last 32 teams, for the reasons outlined by Struway above. However, it does enable me to say that Watford were four rounds from the final. Instead of a footnote stating where Watford entered, the footnote would outline how far they were from the final. I believe this is the most precise option, although it will be more confusing to the reader than approach one.
- 3. Sort by how many rounds Watford progressed through This is not really an option, because putting 1931–32 on a par with 1983–84 defies all logic. But I am stating it as an "option" for completeness. --WFC-- 06:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that'll do for now, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the FA Cup conversation downwards, both to encourage other opinions, and because my previous edit made the whole conversation look very confusing.--WFC-- 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After much thought, I've made the FA Cup column unsortable, added a brief note to explain that achievements are not necessarily equivalent and that 1984 was our best year, and will leave it there. Stru and Sandman were right to raise this point, but all the solutions I've seen on this page would either be misleading or overly confusing to the reader. It may require further tweaking, but I think this edit tries to strike the appropriate balance. --WFC-- 00:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment In response to a couple of Struway's comments, I have merged the two tables to graphically demonstrate the pros and cons of doing so, and have also added the second leagues. I'm still unsure as to whether it's a help or a hinderance though. Split version, combined version. Comments welcome, regards, --WFC-- 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* Cmt Stru is so thorough. A pleasure to get his reviews. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have you back! --WFC-- 09:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Unsure whether it should be sortable or not, as Struway I'm not keen on it, but apart from that the list certainly has its merits. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is quite messy. For the benefit of people who are interested in the list but might be put off by such a long review:
- We're looking for input on whether the sort function is a good thing at all, and whether the way the colspans sort is appropriate.
- We need input on whether the current solution for the FA Cup is appropriate.
I can't say hand on heart that everything else raised above is resolved, but I believe these are the two points that will require wider scrutiny. Regards, --WFC-- 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I can see alot of effort has been put into this. The sort function looks better than I thought it would. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"the club entered the FA Cup and Herts Senior Cup for the first time in the 1886." Excess "the" at the end.- Done.
Early history: "The teams met on eleven further occasions, with Rovers/West Hertfordshire winning six times, St. Mary's four times." I assume there was a draw as well? Also, the Manual of Style usually discourages slashes like the one seperating the team names.- Good spot. Indeed an important one, because the tally of six wins included the first match, contrary to what the wording probably suggested.
Sorting is nice to see in a list of this type, but I did notice a small issue in the goal-scorers column. The 1977–78 leader (Ross Jenkins) is sorting by first name, not last. This runs counter to the rest of the column.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Done. I was fooled by the fact that there were four of them; at Vicarage Road I'm constantly told that there are only two ;) --WFC-- 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I was fooled by the fact that there were four of them; at Vicarage Road I'm constantly told that there are only two ;) --WFC-- 23:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments (late, as ever, and with a view that I haven't seen any comments above, so apologies for repeats...)
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
One more comment hopefully only one. You originally had the supplementary leagues (United etc) in footnotes, but then moved them into the table proper. On some rows, e.g. 1898-99, you've put the supplementary league above the main league, which is a little misleading, and for such rows, the league position sorts on Watford's finishing position in the supplementary rather than their main league. If we're meant to be comparing like with like, shouldn't that column sort on the main league position throughout? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I lied, sorry. Jones's books in the General refs are missing publisher information. Struway2 (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher done. I've had a good think about your sorting point. If 1898–99 was the worst example, it might not be so much of an issue, but 1905–06 is a problem. My conclusion was that there is enough context for the reader to judge the relative achievements of winning the leagues. Given that, sorting 1905–06 as a 14th-placed finishing position would probably not be helpful to the reader. A possible solution would be to always put the Southern League on the top line, sort based on the Southern League statistics (comparing like-for-like), but sort by the higher of the two league finishes (for the benefit of readers wanting to see league championships), and obviously add an explanation. Thoughts welcome. --WFC-- 01:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still think applying table sorting at its current (lack of) capability struggles with the "where helpful" bit of Criterion 4 There's quite a bit of added complication, both visible (e.g. the superscripts on the divisions) and particularly in the table markup, some of which I struggle to understand, so heaven help the average WP editor coming along and wanting to fix a mistake or add something. And it still can't cope with sorting the FA Cup in a meaningful manner. However, the nominator has put in an enormous amount of work (and willingly accepted the need for some of it) to improve the list from when first reviewed, when I'd have had no hesitation in opposing. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words. I think the FA Cup is something we need to think about as a WikiProject, as mentioned above. In the longer run I do intend to take your points into account, through discussion on how to denote divisions at WT:SEASONS, and through the development of a template to change input like this:
| Hidden code from nominator |
|---|
| |- |[[1914–15 Watford F.C. season|1914–15]] |
- into input closer to this:
| Hidden code from nominator |
|---|
| ((fs year|1914-15|South 1|38|22|8|8|68|46|52|1|QR6|—|[[Southern Charity Cup]]<ref name=scc group=nb/>|R1((sortname|George|Edmonds|George Edmonds (footballer)))|17)) ((fs year|colspan|[[Association football during World War I|1915–17]]|Peacetime competitions were suspended during the First World War. Watford competed in the Wartime London Combination in 1915–16 and 1916–17.<ref name=WW1>''Watford Season by Season'' p. 208</ref>)) |
- I think it would be inappropriate to start a "do you like sortable season tables?" type discussion during an FLC, and I think that a template should be left until most other issues have been ironed out. But rest assured, I will pursue both of these things once this has run its course. Once again, thanks for the review. In the past I haven't always taken your criticism well (and with the benefit of a few months worth of distance I apologise for that), but even where your comments are addressed without going entirely where you would like, they always result in a better list. We're lucky to have you. Regards, --WFC-- 19:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:18, 10 August 2010 [2].
List of Florida Marlins first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Been a while but I'm back again. :) One small question on this list I left at the talk page, whether Booty and/or Kotsay won rings in 97. Both briefly appeared during that season, but neither appeared in the postseason. The one thing going for Booty is from his gamelogs he was pretty clearly a September call-up, and I think everyone on the postseason roster gets a ring (and such a call-up would probably get a shot at the roster). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—four dab links (Charles Johnson, Eastlake High School, Westlake High School, Wheeler High School); no dead external links. Ucucha 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, sorry I let this idle so long. Fixed! Staxringold talkcontribs 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, found nothing wrong with the list. Only thing I can think of is adding the year of establishment in the first paragraph. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about it, but they drafted in 92 despite starting play in 93 so I thought it'd be confusing. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments :Link Chicago White Sox in the footnotes.
Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Courcelles 19:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment –
"though have never drafted a second baseman." I think this would be a touch better with one of two variations: either change "though" to "but" or make it "though they have never...".That's all I can find. As always, it's a struggle to find a complaint with the lists in this series. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:01, 7 August 2010 [3].
List of accolades received by Gosford Park
- Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list has been a bit of a challenge. I found it with a single sentence of prose, a handful of references (with one of them being IMDb) and no infobox. Finding sources for this list has probably been the most difficult part of this task, as the film came out nine years ago. However, after a few days work I believe that this list now meets the criteria. I look forward to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 21:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—References 26 and 27 are the same. They link to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2001awards which redirects to http://www.ofcs.org/ . http://www.ofcs.org/ is updated daily. --Dan Dassow (talk) 09:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The website has been through an update since I added the refs, I should have archived them. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 12:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced four redirecting links with the equivalent non-redirecting links. --Dan Dassow (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Comments adequately addressed. I also did a check for consistency between the main list and the infobox and a spot check of ~10 awards. Everything looks in order, good work! Jujutacular T · C 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I saw a few small quibbles (grammar, punctuation), but I could just fix them faster than I could outline them here. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support and the fixes. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-JuneGloom07 addressed my minor nit pick. I could not find any other issues with the list. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — The list looks good to me, though I did change "&" to "and" in the infobox for consistency. Also, there is quite a bit of duplicate linking in the References section, though I am not certain of the policy here and it does not bother me enough to oppose the nomination. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the fix and the support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 19:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:21, 4 August 2010 [4].
List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain
The final bearth of the sorting problems is finally finished, and I combed over the last nom and fixed everything everyone suggested. Hopefully, third time is the charm. ...man I wish I didn't have to nom so many times >.>
- Support - With a few suggestions. The nominator's hard work is evident, but they need to understand that a lot is expected of featured content. ;) ceranthor 23:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The third lead paragraph needs splitting or some work. The sentence mentioning George Bush doesn't flow into the information before it: I'd appreciate it if you could fine a way to fix it, as it doesn't read well in its present state.
- Well they are two seperate points on the same section, so I split them into two paragraphs. ResMar 23:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is the closest to the hotspot, this volcanically active region is the youngest part of the chain, with ages ranging from 400,000 years[2] to 5.1 million years.[3] - I assume you're referring to the age of volcanic rock, but the general reader doesn't know that. It's a nitpick, sure, but worth changing.
- The oldest and most heavily eroded part of the chain are the Emperor seamounts, which stand at between 39[6] and 85 million years in age.[7 - verb tense agreement "part" and "are" don't work ;)
- Surely you can include some notes on those three seamounts? Anything would be appreciated, the blanks aren't consistent with the rest of the article.
- Support. As I found my concerns from the previous have been addressed, so I will support. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A nice and extensive list. Volcanoguy 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Cmt Good progress from last time around!. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Remaining quibbles fixed. I would rephrase the note on CI to:"The date lies within the date-range with a confidence level of 95%." Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 13:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the phrase to reflect the meaning of "standard deviation". Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current phrasing is out-right wrong. 95% of data is not within the date range. The correct description is that in 95 out of 100 estimates (as single point) the date will be within the date-range. Loosely (not correctly): If you have 20 volcanoes in the list one of the date estimates would be outside the given range. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue: the Sharp paper is being attributed to 2 sigma error, but it is actually the Clague paper that we were talking about above. I can't check what the error is in the Sharp paper right now, because I'm at the airport and the internet is slow enough that it's taken several minutes to load the "edit" page here, but this will need to be fixed. Awickert (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, there are two Clauges, ref 19 and ref 47. Which one do you mean? Having their error ranges is nice and everything but utterly useless really, cuz they're referenced two times and once, respectivevly, and like that I can make a 20-note notes column with refs like that. We really neeed Sharpe, that's the big one. ResMar 15:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Clague that the above discussion was about. I'm not suggesting removing Sharp; it's that you put the info on standard deviations from the Clague article on the dates with the Sharp ref. (Maybe this will help: the link that you emailed me was the Sharp article, but it is actually the Clague article being discussed above). Awickert (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support - looks good to me (and I know it pretty well at this point :) ), Awickert (talk) 06:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hawaiian archipelago table – just my opinion, but when sorting by age, shouldn't Hualālai (300,000 years) be first, followed by Kīlauea (300,000–600,000), and then Lōʻihi Seamount (400,000)? Also, shouldn't Kohala come before Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea? It seems logical that ~ 120,000–1 million would precede 700,000–1 million and ~1 million. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more of an illustration of how inaccurate dating is. It's hard to date a volcao: the oldest dated rock is almost never the age of the volcano itself, and the most accurate number would require records of its first eruption (like in the case of Paracutin). Pure logic (and an understanding of hotspot plate tectonics) states that the closer the volcano is to the hotspot, the younger it is. Therefore the near-hotspot order is Loihi-Kilauea-Mauna Loa-Hualalai-Mauna Kea-Kohala-Mahukona. The table is sorted by the age of each relative to one another (which is something everyone agrees on; coordinates are hard numbers ;) ) rather then those given by dating. ResMar 20:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:18, 10 August 2010 [5].
List of outlying islands of Scotland
I am nominating this for featured list because it completes the main lists of Scottish islands and I believe meets the criteria. Ben MacDui 19:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links,
but the external link to http://www.landfood.unimelb.edu.au/ doesn't go where it ought to go.Ucucha 19:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from WFC |
|---|
| *Comment Initial reaction is generally positive. I'll return to review this one when I've got a bit less on my plate. As a brief opening comment, "storm washed" could do with qualification. I'm confident of what it means through familiarity with Rockall, but a reader without that benefit might not work it out. --WFC-- 23:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from WFC:
|
- Support. I wasn't sure if I would be able to judge 3(a), but the user has clearly demonstrated enough knowledge of the subject matter to remove any doubt there. The short lead can be explained by the fact that the introduction to the table is quite long, and in my view that's the correct approach. An excellent piece of work! --WFC-- 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will list them below and comment individually:
- Various other definitions are used in the Scottish context. For example, the General Register Office for Scotland define an island as "a mass of land surrounded by water, separate from the Scottish mainland" but although they include islands linked by bridges etc., this is not clear from this definition. Haswell-Smith (2004) uses "an Island is a piece of land or group of pieces of land which is entirely surrounded by water at Lowest Astronomical Tide and to which there is no permanent means of dry access". This is widely agreed to be unhelpful as it consciously excludes bridged islands.
- ^ Encyclopædia Britannica (1978) says: Hebrides – group of islands of the west coast of Scotland extending in an arc between 55.35 and 58.30 N and 5.26 and 8.40 W." This includes Gigha, St Kilda and everything up to Cape Wrath – although not North Rona.
- If you think this needs a page number I can add it.
- ^ When inhabited, these islands had strong cultural ties to the Hebrides, but they are quite distinct from the Outer Hebrides geologically and Haswell-Smith (2004) pp. 313–331 lists St Kilda in "Section 9: The Atlantic Outliers".
- ^ Aird an Runair, North Uist approximately Mean High Water Springs ETRS89 57°36’10.42010"N 7°32’56.63226"W, grid reference NF 68686,70560. Distance to Rockall approximately 366.966km (228.022mi) (198.146nmi).
- The first sentence is simply a statement. The second is, I admit, an unreferenced calculation, albeit hardly controversial. I'll see if anything definitive is available to corroborate this, but I don't recall ever seeing anything.
- ^ Note that the Ordnance Survey maps mark the height above sea level of a high point on most islands, but in a small number of cases, this may not be the highest point.
- This is a caveat and I don't see how it could be referenced.
- Indicates the presence of a lighthouse on Ordnance Survey maps.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference.
- ^ As the name implies there are two small islets separated at higher stages of the tide. The smaller islet is circa 0.25 ha.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced unless by adding a grid reference.
- ^ The Ordnance Survey indicate the presence of a ruined chapel.
- This is a statement and I don't see how it could be referenced any further given that the OS is listed as a main reference, unless by adding a grid reference.
- ^ The two islands are connected to one another and the mainland at low tides and were probably inhabited at some point in the past.
- The first statement is clear from an OS map. A quick search turns up nothing to confirm the second statement, but it is inconceivable they were not inhabited at some point in the past. I will take a longer look.
- Done. The Gaelic name is a clue - see also Innse Gall. Ben MacDui 08:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first statement is clear from an OS map. A quick search turns up nothing to confirm the second statement, but it is inconceivable they were not inhabited at some point in the past. I will take a longer look.
- ^ None of the very small islets are named by the Ordnance Survey.
- I don't see how it could be referenced any further, unless by adding a grid reference.
First pass of replies - I'll take some time to look at the details asap. Ben MacDui 20:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Cmts Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 19:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this - I'll get to the "none" issue tomorrow I hope Ben MacDui 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good list Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 16:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose mostly great, a few (initial) fundamentals, which may just be me and my tiredness...
I'll come back when these are dealt with, just a quick run-through of the first couple of sections... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC) OK - thanks. Ben MacDui 21:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support as ever, a pleasure working with a dedicated and committed editor who is prepared to listen to criticism and take it positively. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:01, 7 August 2010 [6].
List of Tampa Bay Rays first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Wizardman, User:Halvorsen brian 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it was a break from the franchises who have had long draft histories, as such it's easier for you guys to get through as well ^^. It's interesting how some of these names are among the top of the league, unlike anyone the Indians or Cubs have picked of late. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work, and unlike my Cubs list, the last decade has players I've actually heard of! Courcelles (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my goodness, this doesn't normally happen... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – No complaints from me either. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:17, 16 August 2010 [7].
1992 Winter Olympics medal table
18 years later, and I still remember those crystal medals, and wondering how many of the athletes actually managed to get them home. The answer to that question isn't found here, but Sonia and I hope you enjoy it nonetheless. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I tried and tried, but could not find anything in the list itself to nitpick. The lead is well-written, and the medal counts are verified correctly against the source. My only comment relates to the navigation template, Template:Olympic games medal table—the colored text is a bit hard to read (especially "medalists", in yellow). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and I imagine that template is copying the five colours of the Olympic rings. If it's an issue, I think it would need to be brought up at WT:OLY, as I'm not sure what would be better, and also be visible on a blue background. Courcelles (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
CommentSupport –"Silver medal-winning slalom skier Annelise Coberger-in addition to winning New Zealand's first Winter Olympic medal-became the first athlete from the Southern Hemisphere to win a medal at the Winter Olympics." Seems to me that the bracketing hyphens should be em dashes; they shouldn't be hyphens to start with, and em dashes are used similarly elsewhere in the list.Other than this issue, everything looks okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yep, you're right. I usually put in hyphens and then run the dash script, I forgot this time. Courcelles (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with a few comments. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't specify any width for the medal image. The default width is bigger and apropriate;
- You're right, removed; that was a vestige of the old image that completely overwhelmed the page.
- No alt text for medal image?
- Added.
- Typo (2x): skiier → skier;
- Whoops. Thanks for the review. Courcelles (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't specify any width for the medal image. The default width is bigger and apropriate;
Support Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 10:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
* what makes sports-reference.com a reliable source? It seems to be self-published.
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:35, 12 August 2010 [8].
1988 Winter Olympics medal table
- Nominator(s): Parutakupiu (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This list, along with many others of its series, contained hardly anything else besides the table. I have expanded considerably its content by adding a substantial lede section, with an sufficient number of sources; a fitting lede image, an adequate "See also" section", and finally a proper and updated "References" section. I appreciate your input. Parutakupiu (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll perform a full review later, but isn't there any pictures that can go in the "medal table" section? All that white space is unattractive. Also, cropping the picture of Blair's medal would let the medal be seen at a larger scale. Courcelles (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest me to add, apart from athlete pics? In last resort I can add some. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ended up adding images on two athletes which have contributed strongly to their country's medal count. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Not finding anything here to quibble about. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I ended up adding images on two athletes which have contributed strongly to their country's medal count. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I do not see any serious problem. Ruslik_Zero 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Most everything looks fine.
The one little quibble I have is that I thought "settling with two silver and three bronze medals" was a touch awkward; usually you'd see "settling for" there.Not enough to prevent my support, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 23:39, 20 August 2010 [9].
List of number-one singles from the 1980s (UK)
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the next in the series of lists following the recently promoted List of number-one singles from the 1970s (UK). Here's some interesting snippets for your delictation:
- Mistakenly, a 12" single that was too long to be eligible for the chart was placed at number-one for 2 weeks.
- That Kylie was kept from the top spot because cassette sales were adjudged at the time as being too cheap to be eligible for the chart.
Thanks for your reviews in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: Transcluded late, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem: List itself is fine and well referenced throughout. However, in the opening the first paragraph discusses how the charts were compiled and not at all about any number ones. If I hadn't read the article title, I would have thought it was an article on the UK charts, which it's not. The second paragraph is fine and relevant but then the third (and final) paragraph goes on to talk about cassette singles for some reason - and mentions singles which didn't go anywhere near No.1. The brief mention of the Kylie single isn't particularly important either since it went on to be a No.1 anyway and is just a bit of trivia. The title of the article should be bolded at the top of the first paragraph (or near enough) and should JUST concentrate on what is detailed in the list - a history of chart compilation and cassette singles belongs elsewhere.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in descriptive pages, the title does not have to be bolded; see WP:MOSBOLD. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How the charts are compiled is, in effect, how the number-ones were compiled (and by whom). If you are scholarly in the subject, the method of compilation made huge differences. In the 60s and 70s it was done by music weekly magazines and was a bit of a guess (unreleable and disputed). Lots of different mags did it coming up with different number-ones. Gallup is when it really started to become how we know it today. The changing release date helps explain why in some other sources dates might differ. The automated part is important as it brings the real beginning of the Christmas number one (previously there was a break). I've trimmed the two irrelevent songs from the cassette paragraph, but formats are important as big labels blitzed the market through multi-formatting in the 1990s to get to number one. Additionally, 1 in 2 sales were cassette before it was made an eligible format (which is quite astounding). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments - what is the source for the biggest selling singles of each year and the decade? I can't see a citation for that. Also, I'd question the use of Everyhit.com (somebody's personal website} to cite the million-sellers. As the article itself points out, Everyhit claims that "Tainted Love" was a million-seller even though the BPI don't even list it as a platinum disc. So in essence the article is over-ruling data issued by an official body of the UK music industry (surely a reliable source) based on something claimed on a fansite, I'm not comfortable with this. Are there any reliable sources to support the claim that the BPI's own info is wrong...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
*Comment Another point: "...if sales from cassette singles were included but they were sold for £1.99 – cheaper than the chart regualtions allowed at the time. Following the debacle the British Phonographic Industry reduced the minimum price for cassette singles to become eligible towards sales figures " - This doesn't make any sense, they REDUCED the price? But it says they were already too cheap? Also £1.99 wasn't too cheap for chart eligibility in 1989 that's for sure. The ref provided has nothing to do with - it's an article from 7 years earlier. Even if "Hand on Your Heart" would have gained an extra week - it's largely hypothetical and didn't happen.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, ref provided. It's fine. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference is now fixed (I'd put the wrong one there) and quite explicit about the facts. Pre-1989 £1.99 was too cheap to be eligible. They reduced the minimum price to be eligible, so £1.99 (post-1989) was now above the minimum price and thus eligible. Make sense, and any suggestions about how to make this wording clearer? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support provided you fix the missing quote mark on the end of one of the song titles in the lead and the mis-spelling of "Reet Petite" in one of the notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for your comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Usually we don't put the navboxes under the external links header. Do we?--Chanaka L (talk) 02:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I know nothing of the subject... about twenty years too late for my taste in British music, but I'm not finding anything to quibble about. Courcelles 23:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:18, 10 August 2010 [11].
Listed buildings in Rivington
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of all the Listed buildings in Rivington. The text has been copyedited and the format is one used in other successful FLs. J3Mrs (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick-fire comment, will review in more detail later (but delighted to see it here!) – have a look at some of those previous FLs and find some categories into which this list can be put. BencherliteTalk 09:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, although I must declare an interest. I was responsible for making the date column search (I hope properly), and for unifying the format of the references. Otherwise the list has been completely compiled and collated by the nominator. It is comprehensive, well presented and there is an appropriate amount of information on the buildings. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 07:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An editor has deleted all the details of the publishers of the Heritage Gateway website; I understood that it is mandatory to include the name(s) of the publisher in a reference. To this end I have added a note at the start of the References section giving this detail. Actually it looks much tidier and IMO does the job just as well. Is that acceptable?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, I think it meets all the criteria, and is well-written and interesting. A query: why are the page titles and website titles in the references section in italics?--BelovedFreak 23:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the way ((citation)) formats the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the website title, I know, but we can override it, and I thought that that was generally thought desirable, per WP:ITALICS. That's the principal I've been working from. Am I wrong, or is it not considered a problem either way? I've never been completely clear on whether or not WP:ITALICS also applies to the references.
- ((Citation)) doesn't format the page title in italics, that has been manually added here (eg. ''Hamer's Cottage, Rivington''). Just wondered if there was a reason.--BelovedFreak 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:ITALICS requires italics for page titles, but for printed publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. My concern is whether or not it prohibits (or, rather, discourages) italics for page titles.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the italics, suggest you look at the discussion here on the subject. I'm not sure this completely resolves the situation, but it does explain why things are as they are in this list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that helped a little, although I'm still unclear on which is the right way to do it, but I'm more than satisfied as far as this FLC goes.--BelovedFreak 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I too am unclear (not unusual for me). My personal feeling is that there should not be two "families" of citations. Makes it difficult for mere mortals like us (?).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that helped a little, although I'm still unclear on which is the right way to do it, but I'm more than satisfied as far as this FLC goes.--BelovedFreak 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re the italics, suggest you look at the discussion here on the subject. I'm not sure this completely resolves the situation, but it does explain why things are as they are in this list.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's right. My concern is whether or not it prohibits (or, rather, discourages) italics for page titles.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think WP:ITALICS requires italics for page titles, but for printed publications (newspapers, magazines, journals). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just the way ((citation)) formats the references. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thanks for your support, much appreciated. As to the italics, User:Peter I. Vardy was kind enough to format them for me following a discussion elsewhere as I am "challenged" when it comes to understanding technicalities. I think I know how to remove the italics if it's a problem.--J3Mrs (talk) 11:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you should change it if it isn't a problem, I'm just trying to work out whether or not it is! It's my understanding that the references go against the WP:MOS as they are, but I'm also aware that Peter's lists have got through FLC just fine, in the same format, so that's why I wouldn't oppose based on that.--BelovedFreak 14:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the publisher for Janet Waymark's book? Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Malleus, I don't care much about locations, either, so long as they're consistent. Clare Hartwell's book already had the location. Courcelles (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thank you for your support Courcelles, much appreciated. And Thank you too MF--J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:13, 13 August 2010 [12].
List of battleships of Austria-Hungary
- Nominator(s): White Shadows It's a wonderful life 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I've addressed all of the issues from the last FLC of this list and added in a book that was missing from this page that resulted in the failure of the first FLC, Anthony Sokol's The Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Navy. Feel free to make any comments and let me know of any issues that you see. (I modeled this off of Parsec's List of battleships of Germany list which is currently a FL) White Shadows It's a wonderful life 15:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.
| Resolved comments from Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)]][reply] |
|---|
#
More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Comments2:
|
- Support. I do not see any further problems. Ruslik_Zero 17:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's Ships, they use €300-books, what can you do but support. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 14:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
That's all I have. Courcelles (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- I'm very happy to see that Sokol is being cited, but I'd really like to see more of Greger, a book more focused on the ship themselves. But I'm trying to get a copy myself so I can see what might have been missed.
- I've looked everywhere for a copy of Greger's book but there are no copies on Amazon or any other sites. It also doesn't seem to be in the ILL or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but even if I found a copy for purchase, I simply do not have enough money to buy another book right now. If you can somehow get your hands on it I'd appreciate it :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Sturmvogel been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just done it now.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 16:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Sturmvogel been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked everywhere for a copy of Greger's book but there are no copies on Amazon or any other sites. It also doesn't seem to be in the ILL or perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but even if I found a copy for purchase, I simply do not have enough money to buy another book right now. If you can somehow get your hands on it I'd appreciate it :)--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for the citation numbers being out of order. Forex cite 24 might be listed after cite 25. There's at least one example involving Greger that I caught.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get that fixed.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More detailed comments after I've added all relevant info from Greger:
- Reference titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and some need place of publication.
- Like some others, I think that I've fixed the issue with the capitalization of book titles but I'm not 100% sure. Please check o make sure that I did not mess up or anything :)--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fitzsimmons needs either OCLC or ISBN #, Sokol needs OCLC number.
- Added OCLC numbers for both of them.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why aren't rowspan commands used to combine identical cells?
- I honestly have no clue what you are talking about in this case. Can you try to run that over me again?--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes ref 22 reliable?
- Replaced the citation.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 04:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most place names should be linked on first occurrence.
- I believe that I've fixed that (as well as correcting any over-linking issues) but I could be wrong. If there are any links that I left out, just tell me.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of little niggles, but nothing that won't prevent me from supporting once they're fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference titles should follow Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles and some need place of publication.
- More detailed comments after I've added all relevant info from Greger:
- I'll get that fixed.--White Shadows It's a wonderful life 16:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 15:10, 13 August 2010 [15].
Ciara discography
In transforming the discog from this to this, I now believe that the article satisfies MOS:DISCOG, and is up to par with other FL's. Everything is understandable and comprehensive, doing justice to the representation of Ciara, as well as removing unnecessary fancruft and other unneeded information. Candyo32 14:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
'Resolved Comments
|
- Support. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, ugh! Amazon has confirmed the suspected, Basic Instinct has indeed been pushed back to October 5 (see here). You might wish to update the lead and album tables ;( --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :( Poor Basic Instinct. ugh, I'll make the fixes to the lead & tables. Candyo32 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I've just noticed that column widths for the charts should be formatted using !style="width:3em;font-size:75%;"| rather than style=width="30"| as this automatically allows one's web browser to automatically adjust column widths to match the screen resolution. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- :( Poor Basic Instinct. ugh, I'll make the fixes to the lead & tables. Candyo32 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Discography Issues (Resolved) L-l-CLK-l-l |
|---|
-
|
- Support- All my issues have been addressed, i fully support this article now. Great work Candyo32 :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support WereWolf (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pancake (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - some basic issues...
- And singles is inconsistent in the infobox... if this is entirely the discog, shouldn't the infobox reflect the list?
- not done Per other FL's all singles are stated in the lead, but only solo are in the infobox.
- Not sure (a) this is true or (b) if this should be the way it is anyway, very misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh, I'm just going by other FL discographies. Although they are singles they aren't her solo singles.
- Repeat - shouldn't the infobox be consistent with the lead? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh, I'm just going by other FL discographies. Although they are singles they aren't her solo singles.
- Not sure (a) this is true or (b) if this should be the way it is anyway, very misleading. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not done Per other FL's all singles are stated in the lead, but only solo are in the infobox.
- "Bursting onto the scene in 2004 hailed " reads like a tabloid.
- Somewhat done, while I'll change "bursting onto the scene" to debuting, as The Princess of Crunk&B is an American music honorific title, hailed can be used.
- The reword is better but "hailed" is still very odd here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Somewhat done, while I'll change "bursting onto the scene" to debuting, as The Princess of Crunk&B is an American music honorific title, hailed can be used.
- Link certified appropriately.
- ??
- Link certified to a relevant article which talks about record certification. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ??
- "top five" hyphenate.
- ??
- top-five. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ??
- "US top five hits and international performers "Lose Control", " I don't get this, what do you "international performers"?
- The song's performed in international markets?
- Unclear, should be reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The song's performed in international markets?
- "which saw her remain consistent to her urban roots, and R&B and hip-hop driven dance while experimenting with old school songs combined with huge pop hooks" urban roots, experimenting with old school, huge pop... this isn't a review of her work, it's an encyclopedia, this needs toning down and neutralising.
- not done I'm just taking excerpts of what critics have said and its no way to say it other wise. While using old school music she incorporated pop hooks and used R&B and hip-hop dance music? Candyo32 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If critics say this directly, fine, quote them and reference the quotation, otherwise use less tabloid language. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's supposed to read "R&B" and "hip-hop" "dance" while using "old school" sounds and "huge pop hooks." ? Candyo32 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, of course not, R&B, hip-hop and dance are statements of fact, "old school" however is colloquial and subjective and "huge pop hooks" is opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's supposed to read "R&B" and "hip-hop" "dance" while using "old school" sounds and "huge pop hooks." ? Candyo32 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If critics say this directly, fine, quote them and reference the quotation, otherwise use less tabloid language. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not done I'm just taking excerpts of what critics have said and its no way to say it other wise. While using old school music she incorporated pop hooks and used R&B and hip-hop dance music? Candyo32 03:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Just Stand Up!."" avoid the repeated full stop.
- not done Not understanding the problem.
- Don't need a . after a ! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- not done Not understanding the problem.
That's the lead. I'll review the rest once this lot is resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Lead says three albums, infobox says 4.
|
Oppose It looks like a lot of work is needed to achieve consistency in the article, in terms of references, prose, content etc. I will outline a few.
- Lead — In the first line, released since 2004 seems undue. The second paragraph is the one which should have followed the lead sentence. And all the extra info regarding the sales stuff comes at the last. This is a discography, not a sales estimate. You should put her music to the front instead of commercial reception.
- Lead — I see you have five paragraphs in the lead, try to reduce it to four paras per WP:LEAD.
- As well as a vocalist, Ciara is known for being an accomplished dancer, garnering comparisons to Janet Jackson and Aaliyah,[3] as well as being dubbed the female counterpart of Chris Brown.[4] She is also noted for her whispery soprano vocal style, also compared to Jackson. — Seriously, what is the need of these sentences in an article about discography? It talks about Ciara as a musician, and her styles and accomplishments. This is more suited for the biography page, rather here.
- Debuting in 2004, hailed with the honorific title, "The Princess or First Lady of Crunk&B,"[3][6][7][8] her debut album, — consecutive usage of debut makes for an unprofessional writing. Better would be to have the honorific claim later when you talk about the reception of Goodies.
- Ciara also participated in her most successful collaborations — Refrain from using PEACOCKY words liek most success, you can simply reitereate it as "Ciara also participated in a number of successful collaborations, including... [names]"
- Having the similar success that Goodies had, Ciara: The Evolution debuted at number one on the Billboard — on the Billboard what?
- and charting in the top thirty of most international markets, reaching Platinum status in the US,[10] and selling around two million copies worldwide.[1][3] — I find it very difficult to navigate through such sentences. You begin with a Billboard charting, then move to international charting, then come back to US certification, then move back to worldwide sales. Its haphazard and out of tune.
- Top twenty US and moderate international performer "Like a Boy" was also released — Gives the impression as if "Like a Boy" was a top twenty US success and then it was released.
- Three years after the second release, Ciara released her third album, Fantasy Ride, while remaining with her trademark R&B and hip-hop sound, the work also went towards a mainstream pop and dance direction, as well as using with soul influences. — Please chop the sentence.
- lacking certifications, — is not an indication that an album is unsuccessful commercially. Eminem's Relapse has sold 2 million copies per Soundscan, but remains uncertified. Would you call it a disappointment in this market era?
- Although the album was a commercial disappointment compared ot her previous releases — You just said it in the previous line.
- It will be preceded by the single "Ride" featuring Ludacris — "Ride" has already been released.
- Fantasy Ride: The Mini Collection — Its unsourced completely.
- Singles — Ciara is an American artist, so US certifications comes above any other market, just as US charts are present in the beginning of the table.
- Any reason why you are using Recording Industry Association of New Zealand for the New Zealand albums, and the redirect RIANZ for the NZ singles?
- "And I" column formatting please check.
- You don't need to link the labums again, as they are linked in the section above.
- Why is "—" denotes a title that did not chart, or was not released in that territory not included in the other tables, and only in singles?
- Writing and production credits — Unnecessary section. As I said before, this is a discogrpahy, not a songography that you need to list everything Ciara has done, even writing a line or two for obscure artists.
- The certification for Goodies: The Videos & More really doesnot take me anywhere.
- References — You don't need to have well known publishers in references, like The New York Times Company, Pitchfork Media, Inc, Amazon.com, Inc., RIAA, etc.
- there is no consistency in the reference formatting. Sometimes Allmusic appear as online source, sometimes as a published source as Allmusic. Sometimes it has Rovi Corporation as its publisher, sometimes not. Thats just one example.
- Aria.com.au is not the publisher of Australian certifications, its Australian Recording Industry Association. Aria.com.au is just their website.
- Reference 30 and 31, both are same, then why have you added it as two different interpretations?
- For German charts you have wrong title. Discography there is called Chartverfolgong.
- A number of online sources are italicized, and vice-versa.
These are the things I could find at a first glance. This discography still needs tremendous work. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:21, 4 August 2010 [16].
List of Cleveland Indians managers
I am nominating this this list because I feel it meets criteria. This uses the format of List of Kansas City Royals managers, a featured list. Thanks for the comments in advance. LAAFan 15:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a problem with Ref. #2. Please see Talk:List of Cleveland Indians managers#There should be a total of 7 former Cleveland managers in the Baseball Hall of Fame. --PFHLai (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked for a reference to replace the Baseball Reference citation, but I could not. I added an additional reference covering Gordon's election into the Hall of Fame.--LAAFan 15:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Boom. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, thought you said you NEEDED an additional reference covering his election. Whoops. Staxringold talkcontribs 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
| Resolved comments from Rlendog (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment -
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never brought this up before but given that the B-Ref HoF page notes whether someone was inducted as a player or manager, and given that this is a list of managers (making managerial HoF-status more important) could we get two colors/symbols for HoF managers vs. HoF players who managed? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a new symbol for Lopez (only one inducted as manager). This was used in List of Minnesota Twins managers--LAAFan 01:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Cool, thanks. Could you note that Lopez is the only one to go in as a manager in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Support Cool, thanks. Could you note that Lopez is the only one to go in as a manager in the lead? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:42, 2 August 2010 [17].
List of Chicago Cubs first-round draft picks
- Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said I would like to write the Cubs list... I was expecting it to take weeks sitting on my radar of projects-not 36 hours. Well, after a sleepless night Saturday, it got produced in a blur. I'm not much of a baseball person, but I do have an affinity for Wrigleyville. Turns out the draft history of these "lovable losers" is fairly boring compared to some of the other teams, but I hope you enjoy any-ways. (I do have another nomination open, but it is sitting with two supports and no outstanding comments.) Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Canada Hky (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments - cool little list, a few things I noticed:
|
- Support - all my concerns have been addressed. Neat little list. Canada Hky (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
Everything else checks out. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually.. my support still stands, but could you put the images in draft chronological order? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simple enough. Done. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually.. my support still stands, but could you put the images in draft chronological order? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment yep, good stuff...
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Only thing I see is that Cubs in "The Cubs first-round selection in 1995" could use an apostrophe. Everything else looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks. Courcelles (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:48, 10 August 2010 [18].
List of Pearl Jam band members
- Nominator(s): WereWolf (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-5- (talk) 23:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I strongly believe that this list meets all of the criteria for FLC. I'm stunned how the first nomination was not successful. The list is comprehensive, reliable, and deserving to become a featured list. I also believe that it deserves a second chance. Thank you, WereWolf (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment There are four dead external links; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't dispute the quality of this list, although I do think that Boom Gaspar's image should be moved alongside his entry to reduce the amount of whitespace. Undeniably the layout is useful for someone who specifically wants to know about the member history. But I can't support promotion, as I don't think there is anything substantial here that isn't covered in the main article, meaning that this list does not pass featured list criteria 3(b). Sorry. --WFC-- 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, does this mean you dispute all of the other featured lists, such as List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of Slipknot band members, List of Megadeth band members, and List of Nine Inch Nails band members, as well? Those lists clearly meet criteria 3.b, or they wouldn't be featured. What makes this list any different? WereWolf (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With RHCP, Megadeth and NIN, I think the lists can be justified on the basis that they literally change a band member every year, and therefore the band member history is probably too confusing to bundle into the main article. With Pearl Jam, the band has remained unchanged for 20 years, apart from the drummer and the fact that they've had one touring musician since 2002. Slipknot is a more borderline case, but given that (deaths aside) all the changes happened in a three-year period, I probably would have taken a similar stance to the one I've taken here. --WFC-- 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pearl Jam has had a long history of membership. Every current official band member was part of Temple of the Dog, which isn't even mentioned in the main article. There is also no mention of Matt Chamberlain recording any material with the band in the main article, but that information is listed here. Also, there is a lot more information given to why each member left the band, which are supported by quotations from the other members. Dave Krusen only gets half a sentence on the main article explaining why he left the band, but here, he gets a paragraph. There is a lot more information stored here on this list, which is why it meets criteria 3.b. If we felt as if we didn't, -5- and I wouldn't have nominated it. WereWolf (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With RHCP, Megadeth and NIN, I think the lists can be justified on the basis that they literally change a band member every year, and therefore the band member history is probably too confusing to bundle into the main article. With Pearl Jam, the band has remained unchanged for 20 years, apart from the drummer and the fact that they've had one touring musician since 2002. Slipknot is a more borderline case, but given that (deaths aside) all the changes happened in a three-year period, I probably would have taken a similar stance to the one I've taken here. --WFC-- 08:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, does this mean you dispute all of the other featured lists, such as List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members, List of Slipknot band members, List of Megadeth band members, and List of Nine Inch Nails band members, as well? Those lists clearly meet criteria 3.b, or they wouldn't be featured. What makes this list any different? WereWolf (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An excellent list that meets all of the criteria. It was a pleasure to read. AcrossTheOcean (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — AcrossTheOcean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Director's note Very likely sockpuppet or meatpuppet of nominator. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:19, 4 August 2010 [19].
Grammy Award for Best Contemporary Jazz Album
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best: Alternative Music Album, Female Rock Vocal Performance, Male Rock Vocal Performance, Metal Performance, Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but the list has received support already so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [20].
500 home run club
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Tigers list nom is effectively done (5 supports, concerns are all dealt with promptly) and 3,000 hits is rolling along nicely so figured I'd write this baby up finally. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
a dab link to Texas Rangers;no dead external links. Ucucha 18:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. That damn dab will be the death of me. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Jujutacular T · C 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Everything looks good to me, good work. Jujutacular T · C 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments: It's hard to pass up a list that contains some of my favorite former players (Murray, Thomas, and Griffey Jr.). As long as everything else checks out, the article looks and reads well. My only concern is the "Closest active players" section, as well as any other active players on the list. Is this being updated daily? Or are they being updated only at the end of the season? It might be important to note this somewhere on the page. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's noted under the key, "Statistics as of July 22, 2010". Staxringold talkcontribs 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh... completely missed it. But there is one other thing I noticed. The "See also" section links to 2 other lists that are currently up for deletion and so far looked doomed to go. In fact, the lists don't contain anything new compared to this one. Given the template ((Baseball records)) at the bottom, I'm not sure if the section is needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for saying that, I'll delete them now. Another user added them upon creating those two lists, but I didn't want to delete without someone mentioning since I had voted at the AFD. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ucucha 12:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Comments: Overall quite good, but:[reply]
- In the lead, you mention twice that the 500 home run club is becoming less important; that should ideally be condensed to one mention.
- I disagree. First it's a general statement about the Hall of Fame which merely mentions in passing. Then it discusses Hall of Fame stuff. Then goes into detail on the weakening of the club. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Sheffield's 500th home run was his first at the New York Mets, where did he get the others? If at another team, why isn't that team mentioned in the list?
- Because, as the key says, the Team column is only for "The batter's team for his 500th home run". Staxringold talkcontribs 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 20:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I copy-edited the lead, and spot-checks of the statistics against the sources revealed no discrepancies. The list meets the FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great list! I am not a baseball fan by any means, but I found this list interesting, informative, and well-written. Well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
- "Gary Sheffield is the most recent to hit 500 home runs, having done so on April 17, 2009." Well, he didn't hit them all on that day. Maybe "to hit his 500th home run" would work better?
- In the table, the team name link for Mel Ott doesn't go to an article about the New York Giants. Instead, it goes to a page on some football team. Who would be interested in that? :-) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (I used "reach 500 home runs"). Staxringold talkcontribs 18:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I changed Ref to Ref(s) because some had multiple entries)
- Not at all keen on the Closest active players section. Makes the list inherently unstable, and, after all, these guys aren't members of the club yet. Plus "within 100" seems a little arbitrary to me.
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the addition of another editor. I removed it originally, but he noted that List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples is featured with such a section, so I didn't want to edit war over that. I'd say that section doesn't leave it any more unstable than the active players in the list, or any list with active players (like my .400 OBPer list, eg). As for the 100, it is somewhat arbitrary, but it serves the purpose of being both a nice round number and giving you a limited group of players. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, understood. Not keen still, not objecting, but don't think it fits in. Plenty of FLs with similarly stated inclusion criteria don't have a "bubbling under" section. Odd to see one here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy to remove (or you can yourself). I have no strong connection to it. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:21, 4 August 2010 [21].
List of Digimon video games
I am nominating this for featured list because after a lot of work over the course of about a month, fueled mainly by a thorough peer review by Nomader, I believe it meets the current FL standards. Neither WikiProject Digimon nor I have any FLs under our belts, so I have worked hard on this list and expect to continue as necessary. Tezero (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—
the link to Craig Harris leads to a dab page;no dead external links. Ucucha 18:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Sales figures that could be added (feel free to round the figures):
- Pocket Digimon World: 49,750 copies two weeks after its release [22]
Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers: 34,142 copies three weeks after its release [23]Digimon World 2: 126,444 copies in Japan by September 2000 [24]Pocket Digimon World: Wind Battle Disc: 8,892 copies the week of its release [25]Digimon Adventure 02: D1 Tamers: 14,459 copies a day after its release [26]Digimon Digital Card Battle: 20,255 copies the week of its release [27]Pocket Digimon World: Cool & Nature Battle Disc: 5,022 copies the week of its release [28]Digimon Tamers: Pocket Culumon: 3821 copies the week of its release [29]Digimon Tamers: Digimon Medley: 12,884 copies the week of its release [30]Digimon Battle Spirit: 25,296 copies two weeks after its release [31]Digimon Story: Lost Evolution: 36,105 copies the week of its release [32]
Also, the release date for Digimon Digital Card Battle is wrong, apparently. The source above says December 21, 2000 rather than December 22, 1999. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The GameSpot source (the one used) says 1999. Tezero (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a few of these figures tonight but ultimately I'm too fatigued from events today to do them all tonight. I'll finish tomorrow. Thanks for finding them, by the way. Tezero (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)Added all of them. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I know the GameFAQs/GameSpot release date database is considered a reliable source by the video game wikiproject, but personally I think it's never the best source available. Both the Famitsu source above and the official Japanese PlayStation website say December 21, 2000. I would rather trust these than the GameSpot partially user-submitted database. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Consistently formatted reliable references, page in a readable format. Looks good enough to reach featured. I vote yes. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I don't see anything wrong with it. However, I'm not really sure what the picture of the RPG booth is supposed to be about.--SexyKick 23:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support per my comments at the peer review. Outstanding job, Tezero. Nomader (Talk) 18:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [33].
List of Cleveland Indians first-round draft picks
I am nominating this for featured list because, like the other draft lists, it's ready. If you guys want to make the review process slightly more fun, you can pick the next one I'll try to get to FL status. I wasn't sure whether to have Ramirez or Sabathia as the lead image, I chose the former since his career's already accepted as great, Sabathia's still in his prime. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nothing to nitpick. Cheers. My vote for the next one is Washington, since you-know-who is so big and all. — KV5 • Talk • 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm already halfway through the Rockies, so I'll nominate when in about three weeks. Don't pick that one. Mm40 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we're laying claim, lemme stake out the Marlins. Should be interesting to do a properly new expansion franchise. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're doing the expansion teams in one swoop, then I'll probably work on the Rays roster, since the hard part of that list is already done while this is looked at. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm already halfway through the Rockies, so I'll nominate when in about three weeks. Don't pick that one. Mm40 (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yet another great list. PS- I want to write the Cubs one. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support wanna do the Cardinals? —fetch·comms 13:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support By the way, easy peezy lemon squeezy. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Make that two reviewers in favor of seeing the Cards here next. Oh, and the list is another great one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:27, 30 July 2010 [34].
Historic Chapels Trust
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all the chapels and other places of worship currently preserved by the Historic Chapels Trust. The text has been copyedited and the format is identical to that of other FLs, for example List of new churches by John Douglas. Every chapel in the list has an associated article. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments / queries from me before I support (as I'm bound to do, given the excellence of this list)
- No dab links, but Historic Chapels Trust is a circular redirect to this page - delink it, perhaps, or (better yet) why not move this list back to that name? Realistically there's nothing more to be said about the Trust than you already have done in the lead.
- In my previous nominations for FL, it has been insisted that the title should be "List of ...". After a long discussion it was agreed that lists starting "List of listed buildings in ..." was a nonsense, and it was decided that these lists (only) should be an exception. Hence this title, which I have decided to keep. I have deleted all the circular redirects, and left "Historic Chapels Trust" as a redirect to this page. This means that people searching for "Historic Chapels Trust" will be sent directly to this list.
- ELs all fine
- You use British Listed Buildings as a reference on a few occasions; can you use the English Heritage pages (which are the source of the BLB site) instead for those? E.g. this for the Westgate Primitive Methodists. It seems a shame to use a site with advertising copying from the official site's records.
- I've been used to working with Images of England. The trouble is that this site is now out of date and is not being updated. EH now have a link to Listed Buildings Online, which should be up to date, but I have found very difficult to search and negotiate. So I tried British Listed Buildings which I found to be more friendly, and gave more information, including GRs and coordinates. There were two instances in this list where I had used BLB; both gave more detail than IoE and in each case the building had been upgraded from II to II*. Anyway I've now found them on LBO and changed the references to these. Must practice more with LBO!
- I've removed a second ((reflist)) from the article, which I assume had crept in by accident...
- Thanks, it was as you say an error.
- On my display (IE8), some of the photos (St George's German Lutheran Church, Todmorden Unitarian Church, Umberslade Baptist Church) have an extra line alongside them. I can't see anything in the code that's causing this, but it seems to be the upright ones at 70px
- I think this is a browser problem; similar things have happened with the formatting of other lists. I use Firefox and there is no problem.
- Is "The Buildings of England: Lancashire: Liverpool and the South-West" (2006) still attributed to Pevsner even though he died in 1983? Or should there be a prior year/edition indicated, as with the other Pevsners?
- The current version gives credit to both authors (Pollard and Pevsner). It seems that all the Buildings of England series are being updated and expanded; this volume is one that has been updated. It is a big expansion, still containing some Pevsner text, but more is now Pollard. Cheshire has not been updated yet. So IMO it is appropriate to include the "origyear" field in the Cheshire ref, but not in the Liverpool+ one. (And I think the previous South Lancashire book has been split into Liverpool+ and Manchester+, so there's really no continuity.)
- Your Parliamentary ref (ref 2) says "(published 2006)" whereas your other refs just say "(2006)". I assume this is a product of ((citation)) but don't know which parameter should be tweaked to avoid the inconsistency.
- Fixed.
That's all I can think of for now; well done. BencherliteTalk 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your prompt and helpful comments. I've replied to all that need a reply. Are you happy with this?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yes I am. I knew that Images of England was an archived project, but hadn't had to look for a modern replacement (I'm sticking to Welsh churches at the moment!) so I'll remember the LBO if I need it. Once again, a fantastic piece of work by one of Wikipedia's most dedicated creators of high-quality articles and lists on English architecture. BencherliteTalk 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've decided to go "the whole hog" and have changed all the refs from Images of England to Listed Buildings Online; there is a greater chance that this will be kept up to date in the future.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support yes I am. I knew that Images of England was an archived project, but hadn't had to look for a modern replacement (I'm sticking to Welsh churches at the moment!) so I'll remember the LBO if I need it. Once again, a fantastic piece of work by one of Wikipedia's most dedicated creators of high-quality articles and lists on English architecture. BencherliteTalk 17:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
- Support. Courcelles (talk) 23:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the list name, I agree that it's a little bit odd. I think the rule of thumb is that if the list is effectively a split from a parent article, then it starts "List of...", but if it effectively doubles as parent article and list, then it doesn't. So (e.g.) List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford is a split from Jesus College, Oxford, List of church restorations, amendments and furniture by John Douglas is a split from John Douglas and List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque is a split from Albuquerque, but Bodley's Librarian, BBC Young Musician of the Year and Master of the Rolls aren't splits from anything. Lists of listed buildings don't start with "list of..." to avoid the repetition, which is a clear sub-rule of whatever the main rule is, but anomalous. Discographies and filmographies are splits from a main article about the artist/group, but use a posh word instead of "list of ..."(!) Looking at the wikitext of WP:FL (to see which ones are called "list of", hidden in the main display), I see a few oddities and I won't try and pretend I understand the convention for TV episodes or series, but that's how I look at it. So, I do think that this should be moved back to Heritage Chapels Trust (I fail) Historic Chapels Trust, as it's not a split from a main article since there's nothing more to say about the HCT than you have already. However, I'm not going to oppose on that basis. BencherliteTalk 20:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Let's say... Governor of Alabama. The corresponding list article would have two options: "Governors of Alabama", or "List of Governors of Alabama". The former is too similar to the main article and so should be discarded. The latter works, but as you said, we probably should only use that format when there is actually a parent article. Unless there is enough information on the trust itself to outgrow the list (or rather, until such time as the list outgrows information on the trust), the article should probably be at Historic Chapels Trust. That said, either way, "Historic Chapels Trust" needs to be bolded in the article lede. --Golbez (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is typical for lists to start with "list of..."; I remember a while ago Dabomb went around a lot of list articles moving them to "list of etc" (a couple of examples [35] [36]) as it's the established convention. I'm not especially fussed one way or the other. Having "list of" at the start makes it explicit, but in the examples I've given the original title would have worked just as well in my opinion as the lead provides a summary of the topic. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing: When there's no 'parent article', do you need to be explicit? Why does it matter if it's a list or not? There's only one area on Wikipedia where such a distinction is made, and it's the featured content process. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the name goes, I agree that Historic Chapels Trust is the correct title for this list, as this is the main article regarding the Trust and not a spin-off article about a specific aspect of the trust. More generally, there are some cases where the "List of" could be considered unnecessary or even clunky (as with the aforementioned Listed buildings series of lists). However, I have seen several instances where it does matter. One example comes to me at the moment: compare Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA) to List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings (an FL). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, it's not unheard of for lists to be promoted, even nowadays, and subsequently be uncontroversially but significantly renamed (for instance List of Watford F.C. Players of the Season → Watford F.C. Player of the Season). Although I feel that the short name would be a big improvement, and that at the very least it should be created as a redirect, I don't believe that the matter should have a bearing on the final FLC decision.
- As far as the name goes, I agree that Historic Chapels Trust is the correct title for this list, as this is the main article regarding the Trust and not a spin-off article about a specific aspect of the trust. More generally, there are some cases where the "List of" could be considered unnecessary or even clunky (as with the aforementioned Listed buildings series of lists). However, I have seen several instances where it does matter. One example comes to me at the moment: compare Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford (an FA) to List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings (an FL). Dabomb87 (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's the thing: When there's no 'parent article', do you need to be explicit? Why does it matter if it's a list or not? There's only one area on Wikipedia where such a distinction is made, and it's the featured content process. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is typical for lists to start with "list of..."; I remember a while ago Dabomb went around a lot of list articles moving them to "list of etc" (a couple of examples [35] [36]) as it's the established convention. I'm not especially fussed one way or the other. Having "list of" at the start makes it explicit, but in the examples I've given the original title would have worked just as well in my opinion as the lead provides a summary of the topic. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Thanks folks for your comments. I am entirely happy for the title to be Historic Chapels Trust (it's now emboldened in the lead); I was just trying to follow what I thought was the normal guidance. But I am unsure of the process of moving the title. We already have Historic Chapels Trust as a redirect to the List. Do we just move the content of the article to Historic Chapels Trust; but this leaves List of ... empty. Would this then be a case for AfD of the List? I don't see any point of making List of ... a redirect to Historic Chapels Trust — who would type in the former when looking for the latter? And the title of this page will have to be changed too. Can someone with the necessary skill/experience do this without causing the complications that would arise were I to try to do it? Thanks in advance.
Re the images; I take no credit for them. The credit must go to the photographers who have "given" their work to Geograph (not all images from that source are good; I've been lucky with some in this article).--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the page and this discussion, fixing the links. The "list of..." title is now a redirect to HCT, and is harmless; in fact, it has various inbound links so ought not to be deleted unless those are fixed. BencherliteTalk 11:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for doing that; I most grateful.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments an excellent list with a clear lead and enough information about each of the entries. The only minor nitpicks I can find are:
- In the table headers "date" presumably relates to date of construction - should this be made explicit?
- I've done this as a footnote so that the size of the columns is not distorted by the heading.
- In the references "Listed buildings online" is used as part of the title (followed by the chapel name) in several of the titles (eg 6, 9, 11, 13) personally I would used "work=Listed buildings online" and move it out of the title.
- Agree. Done.
- In a few refs (eg 19, 25, 41) RC is used in the title - should this abbreviation be written in full?
- I've copied the titles precisely as given by the source. It this not correct?
- Not a major issue
Otherwise I feel it meets all the requirements for FL.— Rod talk 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Rod for the comments. A reply to each point is above.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem. Having changed all the English Heritage refs to Listed Buildings Online, there is now a warning from the Toolbox that registration is required for them. In fact a couple of clicks on the opening two pages of the website takes you in and keeps you in for that session. But is there any way of getting more direct access: or do I have to add a warning similar to "subscription required"?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats why I avoid using LBO for refs & stick to IoE.— Rod talk 14:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is IoE is out of date — it's stuck in a time warp and is not updated. Two of the chapels on the list have since been upgraded from II to II*. I think I might have to use British Listed Buildings after all despite its advertising material; it contains precisely the same info as LBO and gives open access. What do others think?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note on Peter's talk page about this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Hassocks, the problem is solved; all the refs have been changed to Heritage Gateway; and the Toolbox seems to be happy now.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a note on Peter's talk page about this. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The trouble is IoE is out of date — it's stuck in a time warp and is not updated. Two of the chapels on the list have since been upgraded from II to II*. I think I might have to use British Listed Buildings after all despite its advertising material; it contains precisely the same info as LBO and gives open access. What do others think?--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) High-quality work, as always.
"As of summer 2010" Any way of rephrasing this? It's winter in half the world.
- Whoops! Summer changed to July.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I sort by street (Firefox), "Alie Street, London" comes between "Hockley Heath, West Midlands" and "Kensal Green Cemetery, London".Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I arranged the Location sort by town/city; so London comes between Hockley Heath and Netherton. I think that's logical, and cannot think of a better way of dealing with the two (potentially aberrant) London addresses.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments - nice list!
|
- Any reason why a number of the titles of the references are in italics?
- I need help here. I think I am the victim of the Citation template. Usually what is placed in the Title field is italicised. In those cases where it is not, the contents of the Work field are italicised and those of the Title field are not. You will see from the discussion above that I have had difficulty with the citations for listed buildings. The website "usually" referenced is Images of England. But this is now out of date and is not going to be updated. The Listed Buildings Online website is up to date, but (unacceptably) includes advertising material. I have been advised that the site to use is the Heritage Gateway; up to date and no adverts. But how to reference it? I helped out with the referencing for Listed buildings in Rivington in a similar style. Another editor amended it, removing the names of all the publishers. I tried to remedy this by adding a Note at the start of the References section, and made a comment to this effect at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Listed buildings in Rivington/archive1. But this has produced a similar problem with italics. It would be helpful to get this sorted out; once done it can be applied to this list, present and future FLCs, and indeed all articles and lists containing English listed buildings.
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to The Rambling Man. Thanks for the comments. Most have been answered but I have raised a query about the last point.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to stick with ((cite web)) which doesn't italicise anything except for the
workfield. Would that be better? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Based on previous discussions I have seen at FAC, the italicized titles generated with ((citation)) are an accepted style as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I think the problems in this list are that some titles are italicised, and some are not. So I have italicised all the titles for consistency. Further comment: I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were encouraged to use ((citation)) for everything (as a sort of catch-all). But it then has to produce consistency across the board, rather than cause the sort of trouble we have encountered here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple widely used families of citation templates: ((citation)) (as you said, a catch-all), or the ((cite XXX)) templates (which includes cite web, cite book, cite news etc.). Neither "family" is encouraged or discouraged over the other, but it must be used for all citations in the article for internal consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's precisely my problem in this list. I've used ((citation)) throughout, and it's produced internal INconsistency. Anyway that's sorted now, so far as the review of this list is concerned.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS (as a slight diversion). Why do we have two families? At present there are two bots travelling around, one transferring ((cite XXX)) to ((citation)), and the other doing the opposite!--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, who knows. We've wandered outside the realm of FLC here, thanks for resolving the issue I noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a couple widely used families of citation templates: ((citation)) (as you said, a catch-all), or the ((cite XXX)) templates (which includes cite web, cite book, cite news etc.). Neither "family" is encouraged or discouraged over the other, but it must be used for all citations in the article for internal consistency. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I think the problems in this list are that some titles are italicised, and some are not. So I have italicised all the titles for consistency. Further comment: I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were encouraged to use ((citation)) for everything (as a sort of catch-all). But it then has to produce consistency across the board, rather than cause the sort of trouble we have encountered here.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on previous discussions I have seen at FAC, the italicized titles generated with ((citation)) are an accepted style as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This is an idea I'm just throwing out there. What do you think of using sortkeys (or a seperate column if you prefer) to sort by county first. This was Todmorden Unitarian Church and Wainsgate Baptist Church would sort next to each other under West Yorkshire using ((sort|West Yorkshire, Hebdon Bridge|[[Hebden Bridge]], [[West Yorkshire]])) etc. Your thoughts? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At present the Location column sorts by town/city. I'm not convinced that there is anything to gain by changing this to sorting by county.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:23, 17 August 2010 [37].
Kelly Rowland discography
- Nominator(s): Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it has undergone many changes to bring it up to speed with other FL listed discographies. It has gone from this to this and now satisfies all criteria at MOS:DISCOG. I think it clearly and accurately sets out the releases of the artist (Kelly Rowland) in way which is easy to understand. In the lead section care has been taken to try and accurately portray the succcess (or lack of in some cases) of her releases and use the most credible sources to provide such information. Rowland is herself a notable artist and the comprehensiveness of the discography now sets a good standard for other articles. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Are ARIA certs the only ones available? Surely Dilemma should be certified by the RIAA and multiple other countries, as would "Work" by the BPI. Also I don't know the MoS criteria, so I don't know but are certs also included in featured singles on the featured artist's discog? Candyo32 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will double check the certs for Dilema. Well according to the VH1 source the song was a joint single. It was named Rowland's debut single and the second single from Nelly's album. It does appear on both albums.Ok i got that wrong. All the certifications list the song as a Nelly release so I've moved it to the featured artists section. Also "Work" hasn't been certified by BPI --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- do you think it is sufficient now? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Mister sparky (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done all of the above, but have an issue with the music videos in that many FLs (Pink discography included) uses links like http://www.vh1.com/video/pnk/9645/there-you-go.jhtml#artist= which do not state who produced each of the videos instead merely link to the video themselves. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mister sparky (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mister sparky (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all my issues have been resolved. Mister sparky (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| L-l-CLK-l-l Comments |
|---|
Alright, the article looks great for the most part. The following are issues i have with it :
|
- Support - All of the issues i had with the article have been addressed. Great work on the article :) (CK)Lakeshade✽talk2me 23:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment Ref 33 redirects to the main page of the website instead of going to the specific article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- resolved.--Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- In Kelly Rowland discography#As a main artist, the two endnotes, [a] and [b], go nowhere; should be removed or targets added.
- resolved --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed these to use normal refs and a 'note' group so that they're consistent with site norms. Note how the second one now gives you two uplinks to the two spots the ref is invoked. Jack Merridew 03:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- resolved --Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More seriously, the entire table scheme used in all WP:WikiProject Discographies pages is completely at odds with several sections of WP:Manual of Style (accessibility):
- The use of rowspans and colspans in the header directly contravenes WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Data tables. There are current threads at WT:Manual of Style (accessibility) that relate to some of this. Such spans are problematic for more reasons, too, such as their preclusion of useful features such as sorting; see WP:Manual of Style (tables)#Formatting and Help:Table#Sorting.
- The tables also flagrantly flaunt the guidance at WP:Manual of Style (accessibility)#Styles and markup options, specifically the part about inline HTML and CSS styling. These tables are a veritable sea of hard-coded inline markup, pretty much on a per-cell basis. This is all inappropriate and the approach to the implementation of discographies as tables is in need of serious overhaul.
- Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response I have yet to to implement the accessibility changes because so far I've yet to find an FL Discography that does comply. To best of my knowledge the accessibility thing is a recent development and there is an on-going discussion going on at MOS:DISCOG#Accessibility issues. I was waiting for more guidance as its obvious that changes were made to the use of data tables without informing other projects so we're having to play catch up. MOS:DISCOG has not been updated to reflect the new access formatting so I refrained from making changes until it was 100% confirmed at the guidance. Currently Kelly Rowland discography follows the appropriate manual of style for discographies at MOS:DISCOG just as other FL discogs do. Its quite confusing if the MOS in different places states different things.If the FL directors wish me to follow the new accessibility guidance and wish to implement the changes then of course I'm happy to do so but you have to understand that consulation did not take place regarding the change and so like I've pointed out MOS:DISCOG does not reflect the new requirements (so I doubt if any existing FLs do). So of course to me its feels likes it quite big changes that have been sprung upon us and so at the time when nominating the article I did so with an understanding of the standards that were acceptible then. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that this is a recently noted issue; regarding discographies, at least. The page I'm seeing at MOS:DISCOG is just a WikiProject page and is not a guideline; it amounts to WP:CONLIMITED. I'm referring to long-standing aspects of the site-wide MOS, which trump WikiProject preferences when conflict arises. I'm not surprised that you're not seeing any FL Discographies that comply with the MOS; I didn't see any that did. The problem here would seem to be a WikiProject ignoring the MOS over time, which is inappropriate. The discussion I just read at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style#Accessibility issues is quite off the mark on some points, such as the row and column spans being acceptable. That discussion is mostly focused on the scope="col" issue, which I didn't even comment on, above. See the links I gave, which concern long-standing MOS guidance. I'll be glad to advise your WikiProject on the appropriate directions to take. Next week, though, as I'll be off. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response I have yet to to implement the accessibility changes because so far I've yet to find an FL Discography that does comply. To best of my knowledge the accessibility thing is a recent development and there is an on-going discussion going on at MOS:DISCOG#Accessibility issues. I was waiting for more guidance as its obvious that changes were made to the use of data tables without informing other projects so we're having to play catch up. MOS:DISCOG has not been updated to reflect the new access formatting so I refrained from making changes until it was 100% confirmed at the guidance. Currently Kelly Rowland discography follows the appropriate manual of style for discographies at MOS:DISCOG just as other FL discogs do. Its quite confusing if the MOS in different places states different things.If the FL directors wish me to follow the new accessibility guidance and wish to implement the changes then of course I'm happy to do so but you have to understand that consulation did not take place regarding the change and so like I've pointed out MOS:DISCOG does not reflect the new requirements (so I doubt if any existing FLs do). So of course to me its feels likes it quite big changes that have been sprung upon us and so at the time when nominating the article I did so with an understanding of the standards that were acceptible then. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Kelly Rowland discography#As a main artist, the two endnotes, [a] and [b], go nowhere; should be removed or targets added.
- Jack I really do appreciate your help but some of these changes are way to drastic and unrequired. One of your own edits which you removed the italics from the reference template I tried to undo but didn't realise that it also undid other stuff. Therefore you need to add back the '' marks for the "work=" parameter in the referencing. Per MOS:TEXT things like VH1 should not appear in italics in the text nor should they appear as VH1 in the referencing even though the "work=" parameter is pre-programmed to do so. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See RexxS's comment about this, back on my talk; one of our large threads there. He pointed us at Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. That thread has been rolling along for ten weeks and seems to have concluded that the 'work' field is correctly adding italics and that MOS:ITALIC (aka MOS:TEXT#Italic face) needs changing, that for websites, the work field should get the gist of the site url. This is what I've been telling you. The work field should not be getting VH1 in it. I dunno if that DISCOG/style page is saying to do this, or if it's just the pattern that's been set by that crowd, but you need to stop following bad advice, wherever it comes from. You've come around on some of the things I've been telling you, and I'm thinking I've been proven right on this issue... This site empowers people; some get to trippin' on it; kewl, I canz writes da rulz. Some people on this site have been doing web development since there was an interwebz, and other kinds of software development for longer, yet. I've said this before, and in other contexts, that a key to success on this project is listening, and knowing who to listen to. Up to you. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question
Are we happy to hold-off on any accessibility changes until the discussion on the discography project talk page is market and completed as resolved? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no; that page will never make it to MOS-status. It's all about going against the MOS and modern web design. It needs a complete reboot. Meanwhile, we should not be granting FL status to pages that are not following the MOS re accessibility. I am sorry that it happened to be a page that you were working on when this issue blew-up. I've working on these issues for a long time, and then the DISCOG tables and rowspans came up on, I think, WT:ACCESSIBILITY, and that caught my eye. Also, you see that Dodoïste said he liked my User:Lil-unique1/Sandbox/8#E.g. 3 take on next-gen DISCOG-tables, best? Try seeing 'accessibility' as meaning to stop trying to control things so much. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a query, the MOS used to mandate "alt text", then it turned out that no-one could adequately define it, so it was removed. As such, FLC temporarily bowed to the whims of MOS editors who simply moved the goalposts (it seemed) for alt text, only to remove it not long after. I could do some more research but am pressed for time, is this modification to the MOS a long-held guideline, or is it a recent update? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging by the recent history of WP:ACCESS, the relevant parts of the guideline are unstable. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unfamiliar with the alt-text discussions; alt-text is a good thing and it would be even better to be supporting the title attribute... The W3C has definitions ;) Alt should be clinically descriptive ('img of woman in a red dress'), titles should track more with captions and be human readable prose, albeit succinct. Alt text is primarily for those unable to see an image; the blind/vision impaired and Googlebot.
- The bits in MOS:ACCESS re the scope-attribute are new. The parts about the issues with row/col spans have been there a long time, as has the caution re inline HTML and CSS styling (WP:Deviations, 2nd paragraph, especially). The two bulleted points in my initial post ↑↑ concern these long-standing MOS issues, not the new "scope" issue. Recent attention on the rowspan concern has resulting in attacks on that aspect of the MOS; some of this is misunderstanding of accessibility issues and some seems to be about attempting to throw-down good guidance that is inconvenient to efforts to extensively customize tables with lots of hard-coded markup that is inappropriate. These DISCOG tables have been at odds with the MOS and good coding practice for at least several years. This particular page just happens to be the one that was coming down the pike when I focused on the issue. I know that Lil-unique1 was just following what he thought was appropriate guidance. Cheers, Jack Merridew 22:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- this article still has my support. by reading through all the arguements/discussions that are littered about all over the place regarding discographies and the accessibility issues, it seems they are still up for much more discussion and nothing concrete has been decided. before all discographies are forced to change what has been going on for a long time there needs to be some concrete guidelines agreed by overall consensus. this has not yet happened. Mister sparky (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That puts the cart before the horse. Guidelines describe the consensus of what is done, not prescribe how to do it. Featured articles and lists should represent the very best work on Wikipedia and by ignoring genuine, specific issues that are already documented in MOS, we fossilise poor practice and create yet another example for others to misapply. Just as the lead image lacks alt text, rendering it worthless to a blind reader, the tables are unnecessarily difficult for a text-to-speech reader. In what way would removing the excess inline styling (for example) contravene the MOS? And yet, if I view the first table on my 17" screen laptop at its native resolution, I have problems reading the 75% text – and I don't class myself as visually impaired. Several tables can cause problems because they rowspan the first column ("Year"), and yet even WP:WikiProject Discographies/style states: "Each release is given its own row, with various pieces of information creating a series of columns.", but in the Singles chart, the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information. Why isn't "Train on a Track" the row header? It's the unique identifier for the release, not the (non-existent) year. There's no reason not to fix problems like these, other than a desire to control the format to such an extent that is only appropriate for part of our audience. --RexxS (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "the row for "Train on a Track" actually has no "Year" or "Album" information" - it clearly shows that "train ona track" was released in 2003 and is on the album simply deep, not difficult. and i have a 17" laptop screen at its normal resolution and i can see it perfectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.49.179 (talk • contribs)
- My argument is why is everyone battering this article with a huge stick when it follows the style and format of all other FL discographies. Nowhere does project discography say thatyou cannot merge cells for year/albums. I think you'll find that ALL FLs merge cells for albums and years. Also I use a 16" laptop and I have no issue with the 75% formatting. As far as I'm aware and from what I was told the "style="width:3.5em;font-size:75%;" formatting allows web browsers to adjust the formatting to fit the dimensions and resolution of the screen. Lots of users have stated on the discography talk page and the talk page of WP:Accessibility that the changes and updates are on-going. Its also been stated that more expert opinion and clear evidence is required as well as everyone commenting that it would be unwise to radically transform any article based on an unstable and constantly changing policy. My arguments are that based on the current given standards this article does examplify the best standards for lists. If you think it doesnt then why not criticise the existing FLs and FL discographies upon which this was based? No one is saying that such changes won't be made, we're just wanting to put them off until there is a clear cut consensus and mandate on how to implement the changes best. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your 16" laptop have a resolution of 1920px across? If it does, and you can read that 75% text, just count yourself lucky for having superb vision, and then take a moment to put yourself in the place of those of us who are not so fortunate. You were misinformed, by the way, about style="font-size:75%;"; browsers do not adjust text size depending on the resolution of the display – you tell it to use 75% of the normal (12.7px) text and it comes out as 9.5px text, with the ref numbers in 8.5px text. Why do you have to inflict that size of text on anyone whose eyesight is less than perfect? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I'll admit I'm not a massive fan of the small text myself but I've used it because every other FL and every discography I've encountered has. I've removed it as I dont see it as a major requirement. Is it better now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the <small>Small Text</small> as well. As it happens, that's less of a problem as it can be overridden in my monobook.css (although I'd rather not have to) and it's almost 10px, but I think it looks cleaner without the different text sizes anyway. You can always ask yourself: "Do they actually lend any value to the article? If not, why are they there?" I really hope you don't think I'm picking on this article, but I do believe you have the chance here to set a valuable standard for others in the future. Be better than what's gone before. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You see I'm happy to listen to your suggestions and see if/when/where the changes or concessions can be made. I respect genuine comments when the person giving the comments is not patronising nor trying to sound like the 'tree of life' on the subject. What do you make of the new proposed tables on the discography talk page? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Cutting the style="font-size:75%;" and <small> are steps in the right direction. Terima kasih. As I've been saying, you and others have been following poor advice; the /style page and the extant Discog FL's all offer poor techniques to copypasta. I noted that there were two FL Discogs at FLR and considered bringing these concerns there. They're at FLR for other reasons (crosses fingers as I've not looked in days;), and more issues as discussed here would likely seal their fate as demoted. I didn't because that would fragment the discussion. Look, I'm sorry this landed on the page you've been working on; I said I'd help get it to follow the core intent of the real MOS (not the pretender with the lying prefix). I have a huge amount of coding experience. I've worked on apps that are millions of lines of code. Not stuff written in mere html and css, either. You know what? Repetitive code bloat bites you in the ass, every time. It hosed Longhorn, and cost Bill tens of billions of dollars. Jack Merridew 01:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lil, I don't think I could usefully add to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Discographies/style, but you will recognise that I don't like text that renders below about 10px; that I think the first column (row headers) should contain the unique identifier for the entry in that row (screen readers can speak that for each cell, allowing non-linear navigation of the table for the blind); and that I don't like references in the headers (for the previous reason). Have a look at this article again and see if there are any changes that could improve any of those aspects. If there are, can you see any good reason why if the article were as good as it could be, it should not contain those changes. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that's much more legible now. I see you've started to remove the <small>Small Text</small> as well. As it happens, that's less of a problem as it can be overridden in my monobook.css (although I'd rather not have to) and it's almost 10px, but I think it looks cleaner without the different text sizes anyway. You can always ask yourself: "Do they actually lend any value to the article? If not, why are they there?" I really hope you don't think I'm picking on this article, but I do believe you have the chance here to set a valuable standard for others in the future. Be better than what's gone before. --RexxS (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I'll admit I'm not a massive fan of the small text myself but I've used it because every other FL and every discography I've encountered has. I've removed it as I dont see it as a major requirement. Is it better now? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 01:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your 16" laptop have a resolution of 1920px across? If it does, and you can read that 75% text, just count yourself lucky for having superb vision, and then take a moment to put yourself in the place of those of us who are not so fortunate. You were misinformed, by the way, about style="font-size:75%;"; browsers do not adjust text size depending on the resolution of the display – you tell it to use 75% of the normal (12.7px) text and it comes out as 9.5px text, with the ref numbers in 8.5px text. Why do you have to inflict that size of text on anyone whose eyesight is less than perfect? --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if everybody thats been working on FL discogs has been using bad examples to follow and "copy", why doesn't somebody who knows that they're doing (ie Jack) make the kelly rowland album and singles tables that adher to MOS perfectly? then we know exactly where we're going wrong and actually have a correct template to follow. all these discussions/arguements that are all over the place are going nowhere. Mister sparky (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no issues and am not getting involved in any MOS discussions. I'm fine with the tables as is but would likely still be fine if modified. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues from Adabow (talk · contribs) |
|---|
*Comment The article for "Stole" mentions a BPI cert; this isn't here. I will support after this is sorted out and alt text is added to the infobox's image. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support I guess I was making issues out of nothing Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note I have promoted this candidate to featured status. A couple editors raised concerns with regard to the accessibility guidelines, which FLs must normally comply with per criterion 2. However, these guideliines are currently in flux right now. The thrust of criterion 2 is to promote stability and consistency in the style, but this purpose is defeated when the style guidelines themselves are constantly changing. I encourage discography editors and the accessibility experts to work together to create a stable, consensus-backed guideline that everyone can follow to make our articles accessible to as many readers as possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:54, 27 July 2010 [40].
List of number-one singles in 2009 (New Zealand)
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all six FL criteria, and represents one of the best lists Wikipedia has to offer. Adabow (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Personally, following a decade system like this is preferable. The lead is short and the whole table could concievably go into 11 single lines. Therefore I don't think it is large enough (3b). There are also other issues:
- MOS:COLOUR - don't use colour as only method to convey informaiton
- What makes servinghistory.com a WP:RS?
- Consistency: "number-one" or "number one"?
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback!
- Size: I largely based the list on this type. Adabow (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colour:I have thought about this, but what else could I add without being obstructive and preventing flow?
- You could easily add a § or a dagger or an asterisk or some other punctuation mark immediately after either the song title or artist name. As it is, I have extremely good vision and I can barely make out the grey background, someone with poor vision would not be able to make it out at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- servinghistory: it compiles news from a variety of feeds, this one from the RIANZ. I have added the original source from the RIANZ site (with an archive) as well.
- "number one" is used alone eg "it went to number one", while "number-one" is used in conjunction with other terms eg "it was a number-one single". Do you see what I mean?
Adabow (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ja 1207 wants to make this change. What is the WP policy on this sort of information? Adabow(complain) 21:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [41].
List of Governors of Florida
The legend continues, we're now up to F in our long struggle to get every governor list featured (notwithstanding misfits like Wisconsin and Utah, but I prefer to go in order!), and with each iteration, things change. Taken from the recent Utah FLC are: Moving the constitutional information on succession down to the state (needed more prose down there anyway) and added more information on the territory to the introduction. New in this version of the template: Prose in the "other high offices" section! It always seemed a bit sparse. I have one question for our voters: Should the "other high offices" table include the years they served those other offices? I've always omitted them, because 1) If you really wanted to know, you'd click their article, 2) Some people serve non-contiguous stints in congress, and 3) It would heavily clutter up the table with, in my opinion, negligible gain. What do you think? That asked and said, I present this list for your consideration. --Golbez (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent read. A commment tho. Sandman888 (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most sources state Walker was a Democrat; the state archives say he was "Conservative"" Be ware of OR in the claim of "most". Also include said sources.
- Every source I've found says he was a Democrat, I could include the NGA reference as an example. The only one that says otherwise is the official state archives, but those being the official archives, I felt they merited some form of inclusion (and I'll throw in a specific reference to that). They likely mean "Conservative Democrat", but they don't say. Do you have another way of wording this? --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced list. Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC):[reply]
|
- Support. All issues resolved. Parutakupiu (talk)
- Comment If you would like to move the list to "Governor of Florida", feel free to do it now. I'll take care of the rest of the paperwork. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, considering that it currently lacks much information you'd expect to find on such a page (eligibility requirements, powers, etc.) it makes more sense to keep it here. I doubt it's of featured quality for a main article at present. --Golbez (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [42].
United States congressional delegations from Utah
Currently, congressional delegations from Indiana is the only FL congressional delegation list. I've tried to use Indiana and sort of the same format as the recently FL list Governors of Utah Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. by statewide popular vote is repeated three times (in the lead, and two times in the first section). Can you reduce repetition? Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Representative Leatherwood Died while in office Why is 'Died' capitalized here? It looks like part of the name. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I do not see any serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular T · C 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment In the lead image caption: does "Delegation" need to be in caps? And shouldn't it be plural? Jujutacular T · C 17:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Just had my minor tidbit that was cleared up, thanks. Everything looks good. Jujutacular T · C 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comments
All comments below have been "fixed" unless stated otherwise Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Lead image appears to contravene WP:ACCESS as unless you can tell the difference between red and blue, you can't work out which portion of Utah is which. And the caption needs some work, because it isn't an image of the delegation, it's a map split into three...
- Updated the caption. Not sure what to do about the colors. I could remove red and blue and just leave the outline with the numbers???? Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still fails ACCESS because you're using just colour to differentiate between Democrat and Republican. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated the caption. Not sure what to do about the colors. I could remove red and blue and just leave the outline with the numbers???? Bgwhite (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [43].
2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is among the finest lists on WP and I hope this process will standardize the optimal format for these lists going forward. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Great stuff. My only suggestion is that I think the current structure is a little confusing. In the lead, I would describe what an all-american team is first, then describe the different organizations that grant all-american status, and then describe what a consensus team is. The way the article is currently written makes it seems as if the consensus team is the focus when it seems the focus should be on all of the all-american ratings and the consensus is just an aggregation of that information in an interesting format. Remember (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is "Men's Basketball" capitalized? I don't think "2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans" is an actual name for the group of players selected to these teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not averse to a page move to lower case. It just needs to be consistent with all the other seasons and properly changed in the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Detailed and a great read, but there is a lot of overlinking. It makes the tables hard to read, particularly the 'By Team' section. I can see having players linked once in each section, but that mass of blue is tough to break down. Other than that, it all looks good. Canada Hky (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I delinked quite a bit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Everything's been addressed, much more readable. Canada Hky (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Personally, I think the consensus teams are too buried now - this is the piece of info that a) is actually tracked by the NCAA over time and b) gives an idea of who the main All-American players were for a given year then goes to a list of who made the specific teams. To me, showing information from the overview to the specific makes sense as opposed to being confusing. I understand that I may be in the minority so I can defer to the consensus. I do think that 55 references is WAY overboard. Every player doesn't need to have their player page linked from this article and the info from these pages isn't actually used in the article. If readers want to know more about individual players they should go to the individual Wikipedia pages to read it. Just my 2 cents. Rikster2 (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with Rikster2 in that the consensus team should be much more visible (in other words, higher up in the article) because those are the players who received the most votes and recognition for being All-Americans. The individualized nominations are of secondary importance. When I go to an All-American page for men's basketball, I want to know the generally agreed upon (consensus) team, not the individuals. Sure, include them, but don't make them the focus – that misses the main point of interest. I would argue the same thing for any other college sport (baseball, football, soccer etc.), so this is not merely a basketball prejudice. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where both of you are coming from and have asked that the person who suggested moving consensus down comment. I will await consensus before making further changes to this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind having the consensus list be the first list, I just thought the lead should start off with the basics and not start of explaining the consensus list first. So maybe just moving the consensus section to be the first section would solve everyone's issues. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense to me. Have the consensus team later in the lead but be the first list to appear seems logical. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That makes sense to me. Have the consensus team later in the lead but be the first list to appear seems logical. Rikster2 (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind having the consensus list be the first list, I just thought the lead should start off with the basics and not start of explaining the consensus list first. So maybe just moving the consensus section to be the first section would solve everyone's issues. Thoughts? Remember (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see where both of you are coming from and have asked that the person who suggested moving consensus down comment. I will await consensus before making further changes to this matter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I still think there are too many unnecessary refereces. Any other thoughts on this? Rikster2 (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should I add a column for consensus AA points in the sortable table?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 14:59, 7 August 2010 [44].
Cave In discography
- Nominator(s): Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC) and Cannibaloki 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... A fellow editor recommended that I nominate my article for FLC. That, and I worked really hard on it, and it's really pretty! I honestly do not agree with the general consensus that a Wikipedia discography for a group or band needs to be a mess of charts and statistics. I don't find that style engaging as a reader. I want to read about a band's various releases! I stepped outside the guidelines at WP:DISCOGS, and this article was the result. I think it worked well for Cave In because most of their releases fail to meet the GNG anyways, so this would be the next logical place to mention them. Fezmar9 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural note: Not sure how important it is, but I took the liberty of history merging the list development that took place in the user space so it now appears as part of the history for all to easily see. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Review
-
- Do not bold what is not considered the title of the article, as most FL's of this nature do not bold any words trying to describe the title.
- Removed bold text.
- Merge the first and second paragraphs, no need for those two to be stand alone when they are so short.
- Done.
- In the second paragraph about how they merged, you can easily merge the first two sentenced into something like "Cave In formed in 1995 in Methuen, Massachusetts, where thereafter they began releasing several split singles and demos that eventually culminated in the 1998 compilation album Beyond Hypothermia."
- Done.
- "These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing "metallic hardcore" and metalcore." -- is there a difference in what youre trying to say here about metallic hardcore and metalcore? Isn't it the same (please I do apologize I'm not really aware of the genres)
- Reworded. These early releases from the band are often considered important albums in developing the metalcore genre. According to your userpage, you like to listen to metalcore while watching professional wrestling on TV.
- "The band lost their interest in performing metal, and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach to their music beginning in 1999 with the EP, Creative Eclipses.[4]" -- saying they lost interest is WP:POV-ish, try rewording to say that "The band gradually began to move away from metal and took a more alternative/progressive rock approach..." (also remove the comma after EP)
- Done.
- "Two Jupiter-related EPs were released; Moons of Jupiter featuring alternate versions, and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides. " -- 1)Use a colon, not a semicolon 2)featuring "alternate versions" of what? 3) "and Lost in the Air featuring B-sides" -- so B-sides were released alongside this EP? That should be stated more clearly
- Removed sentence
- "Cave In released one more EP through Hydra Head Records in 2002, Tides of Tomorrow, before signing to the major label RCA Records." -- "major label" is POVish, simply saying "signing with RCA Records" does the job.
- Done.
- I feel you should state earlier in the lead that when they formed and did their first EP, they signed with Hydra Records. The way you introduced Hydra Records is a bit way off, you simply said that they released an album with them. You should directly state they were signed by them earlier in the lead.
- Cave In's first studio album, Until Your Heart Stops, was released later in 1998 through Hydra Head Records.
- "Cave In's run with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful" --> "Cave In's signing with RCA Records proved to be the band's most commercially successful." -- One reword that part I did, but this sentence doesn't make sense. "most commercially successful (what?)"
- The band's only album released through RCA reached the charts in the U.S. and the UK.
- "In 2003 they released their third studio album, Antenna, which became their only album to chart on the Billboard 200. It peaked at number 169." 1)Comma after 2003 2)no need for a separate sentence for its peak, merge it into the same sentence like "on the Billboard 200, which peaked at 169."
- Reworded.
- "The single "Anchor" off Antenna received some minor radio success, and landed on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart at number 34" -- I didn't know singles could fly like planes? Try to avoid giving human qualities to objects, so instead you should use like "ranked"
- Okay, sorry...
- "Cave In began working on new demo tracks in 2004 that were more in the vein of the band's earlier and heavier albums." -- well since they are working on them, of course they are new. So no need to say "new". In addition, are you trying to state "in the vein of the band's earlier heavy metal albums"? Because simply saying "heavier albums" doesn't quite cut the chase.
- Reworded.
- You can add that last part about them reforming in 2009 to the last paragraph, no need for a stand alone sentence.
- Done.
- Is there a reason why they went on hiatus in 2006, and why/how they reformed in 2009? Not their entire story but just a simple sentence saying why?
- This article is about the band's discography, not its history.
- The tables need to be formatted as in other discographies, like The White Stripes discography. The studio albums, for fact, I know haven't just ranked in the United States. If research is done, they definately ranked elsewhere in the world. The compilations, EP's, and Splits can stay as they are but the width of the table should be fixed as they are in the FL is showed you. The singles need to be formatted as in the table in the FL as well, as well as the non-album tracks.
- Formatted like Kronos Quartet discography?
- The music videos, their should be a footnotes as to why their is no director listed for that last entry.
-
- Overall, a lot more work is needed before this FL can be close to FLC standards. For now I must Oppose. Next time, I recommend you take the list to Peer Review, basically which is what I did for you above. I hope this helps.--Truco 503 17:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for peering reviewing the article, next time I will be sure to do that before nominating. Is the table formatting similar to The White Stripes discography an absolute must in order to be listed as a FL? I specifically avoided MOS:DISCOGS (which is still only a proposed guideline and also suggests ignoring all the rules in certain situations) while creating this article for several reasons, some of which are listed in my nomination. I am fully aware of what Wikipedia thinks a discography should look like, as I have edited/created a lot of them in this style. However, I no longer believe that the currently accepted formatting of a Wikipedia discography should be called a "discography" anymore. Personally, I would rather see Comparison of charts and sales for albums by The White Stripes as its own separate article if a comparison is truly valuable to people, and a discography article that delves a little deeper into each release. Something a lot more engaging as a reader. After some quick research, the same two US charting releases also charted in the UK[45]. I absolutely refuse to conform to some archaic and cluttered styling method just for two releases that charted in two countries. If that kind of thinking withdraws this article from FLC, then so be it. Most of this article was written as if the releases by Cave In of questionable notability for an article had been deleted and merged with a relevant article. I just bypassed that whole creation/deletion processes, and presented a lot of information here in prose. I fully acknowledge that the style I have created here goes against guidelines, but also I feel that this is a much better way to present the information for Cave In's releases. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The main issues I see is how you are using the format. In the studio albums, you can at least add notes to the ones that are blank, right? You can add more about the other places they ranked on charts. Remember, Wikipedia is not US-centric. Also, on some of the other entries like the live albums, you give a track listing. I don't see that as necessary. Another thing, why do the tables have to be so wide? IMO it makes it strenuous to the reader. I completely understand your reasoning for it, and I agree you may do that just tweak it a bit.--Truco 503 16:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose a featured list discussion is not a peer review. the article does not conform to the usual styles so a peer review would have been better suited. as truco said, i can also understand the reasons. Mister sparky (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, it seems I have gone about this the wrong way as the general consensus is opposed. I will copy and paste these points into the article's talk page, work them out one by one, perhaps submit the article for another peer review, then return here in a couple months. With my short attention span I can really only focus on a few articles at one time, and Cave In discography just isn't one of those articles right now. This was my first FLC and I kind of thought this was more of a pass/fail system. I am sorry for wasting everyone's time. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Nomination was withdrawn but I have reinstated it per a request at my talk page. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 23:54, 27 July 2010 [46].
A Ghost Story for Christmas
This is a list of the BBC's "Ghost Story for Christmas" strand, which was a set of related but separate adaptations of M.R. James and other ghost stories. Although primarily a list, it also serves as the main article about the strand and related productions. Referenced to reliable sources, mainly the BBC and BFI, I think it meets the FL criteria, conveying the main information about the adaptations with relevant information on broadcast dates and adaptations. Bob talk 22:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This could make a great Good Article, but it is not a list. This is an article about the series that includes a list of episodes. Reywas92Talk 01:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it blurs the boundary somewhat, but thought it was more akin to a season list like Family Guy (season 5), Green Wing (series 1) or List of Bleach episodes (season 2) than an article in the traditional sense, as it mainly consists of a list of individual films (each yearly installment had a completely different cast/story, etc). Bob talk 07:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. This is not a list. No insult to its quality intended, this is simply the wrong venue. --erachima talk 09:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've brought up the issue of whether this is a article or list at WT:GAN. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well reffed. This is just as much a list, if not more, as the Freedom Award or the Ballon d'Or. In favour of consistency I support the nomination. Sandman888 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 19:54, 30 July 2010 [47].
List of Final Fantasy media
- Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because after nearly 3 years, I believe this list is back up to standards. There is an archived peer review here for reference. Any comments and criticism are welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There's no dabs in the article but has two dead links. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed one dead link and the other seems to be a temporary thing where the site in question has problems accessing news articles. We'll see if it persists. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Nomader (Talk) 16:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Nomader
Sorry I don't have time to make a more thorough review of the lead and the list-- I'll try to add to my comments at another time. For now this should do. Nice work bringing it up to the level it's at now! -- Nomader (Talk) 21:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – I'm going to go ahead and add my support now. Nice work on addressing my concerns, and I'm confident that you'll be able to address Jonathan's as well. Nomader (Talk) 05:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
Sorry if I am annoying, but we all want the list to be the best one possible right? :) Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] A few other missing stuff I've just noticed:
Still more missing stuff I just found:
Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – I'm now supporting the nomination. Nice work! Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot, to both of you for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Review
-
- "Its first game premiered in Japan in 1987, and Final Fantasy games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America, Europe and Australia, on nearly every video game console since the Nintendo Entertainment System, including MSX2, Super Nintendo, PlayStation, WonderSwan (Color), PlayStation 2, IBM PC, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, and PlayStation 3 game systems, as well as several models of mobile phones." -- 1) No need to link the continents 2)I feel that you should probably cut this list down by saying something along the lines of "since the NES, including other first, second, third, and fourth generation consoles"
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref #112, is a dead link.
- Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "...and games for mobile phones." - you already stated that earlier
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know the series is basically about video games but this is a list of the entire media, why focus solely the lead on the games? I feel you should expand upon the other media instead of just giving them one sentence in the lead. That is not summarizing.
- I rewrote the lead to address this. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the games list, what verifies some of the console releases? I see some that say "released on Playstation" with no references.
- Those are the original console releases. I figured they would be implicit because for most video game articles I see, you don't need a ref for the original console. I can add one if you insist. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just listing the film/television doesn't tell the reader much, their should be some introduction to that table. As well as to the radio drama and novels. Simply because they dont have main articles doesn't mean they can't have some sort of introduction.
- I added short introductory paragraphs. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- References
- What makes RPGamer, RPGFan, TV.com, MusicBrainz, Fleuve Noir, and finalfantasy-xiii.net. all reliable sources of information?
- RPGamer is reliable per WP:VG/S, RPGFan is reliable per comments in here, as discussed in resolved comments from Nomader above. TV.com is part of CNET, a reliable publisher. MusicBrainz is a semi-open wiki style database, but all changes are subject to strict editorial review. Fleuve Noir link was dead, replaced with Amazon. As discussed above in Nomader's resolved comments, ff-xiii.net is not necessarily reliable per se, but the news articles cite primary sources (in Japanese) and they were the only place I could find that covered the info I needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is inconsistency with linking publishers, either link all the publishers that have links, or don't link them at all. Prime example would be the inconsistency with "GameSpot"
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishers need to be the same throughout, Amazon is the publisher, not Amazon.co.uk (thats just the location difference, but Amazon is still the publisher). Square Enix is the publisher throughout, the location again is not important. If you must state it, place it as "Square Enix (Japan)"
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some refs don't have the language template, such as the Yahoo! Japan reference. (Btw, Yahoo is the publisher not Yahoo Japan)
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a lot of the references, the formatting is a problem because you use brackets in the titles, when instead you should use parenthesis, prime examples are refs#112 and 69 (although there are a lot more)
- Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes RPGamer, RPGFan, TV.com, MusicBrainz, Fleuve Noir, and finalfantasy-xiii.net. all reliable sources of information?
- "Its first game premiered in Japan in 1987, and Final Fantasy games have subsequently been localized for markets in North America, Europe and Australia, on nearly every video game console since the Nintendo Entertainment System, including MSX2, Super Nintendo, PlayStation, WonderSwan (Color), PlayStation 2, IBM PC, Game Boy Advance, Nintendo GameCube, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360, Wii, Nintendo DS, PlayStation Portable, and PlayStation 3 game systems, as well as several models of mobile phones." -- 1) No need to link the continents 2)I feel that you should probably cut this list down by saying something along the lines of "since the NES, including other first, second, third, and fourth generation consoles"
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Just checking, do you have a support or oppose opinion now that your comments have been resolved? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 11:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as a director I rarely support lists in which I have no real knowledge (as I may need to close them), so I simply review them for basic flaws. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well then, thanks for your helpful comments. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as a director I rarely support lists in which I have no real knowledge (as I may need to close them), so I simply review them for basic flaws. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I've been watching this as you built it up before/during this FLC, and I'm really impressed with how it's shaped up. --PresN 15:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (Note- I wrote/FL'd the video games sublist)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 16:42, 2 August 2010 [53].
Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria and closely resembles other Grammy-related featured lists I have successfully nominated (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album). I realize another Grammy-related list is currently being examined by reviewers, but many of the concerns have been addressed and the list has received support already, so I thought it was acceptable to nominate another list (and I have other lists waiting as well). Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Excellent stuff, just a few nitpicks:
2005 – according to the source, "Good Luck" features Lisa Kekaula; do you make distinctions like that on the list?
- I just say "and" as opposed to "featuring". If they had won, both would have received a Grammy award, so I think "and" is more inclusive. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2006 – according to the source, "Galvanize" featured Q-Tip, but you make no mention of that in the list.
- Done. Thank you for pointing this out--now sure how I missed that. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment: "In 2003, the Academy moved the category from the "Pop" field into a new "Dance" field." So was the award called best pop recording originally? Didn't sound like it but this sentence seems to imply that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – "Gloria Estefan holds the record for the most nominations without a win, with three nominations." The last word is a bit of redundancy that can safely be removed.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment: Do artists need to be linked multiple times in the same table? Example: Justin Timberlake twice right next to each other. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:01, 28 July 2010 [54].
List of Nashville Sounds awards, All-Stars, and league leaders
- Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the description of a featured list. NatureBoyMD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Reference 17 should include an indication that the page is in PDF format.Other than that I'm not finding anything to complain about. Solid work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Was waiting on the comments below to be resolved before supporting. Now that they have been, I see no reason not to do so. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
|---|
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominations for removal
List of Olympic medalists in figure skating
- Notified: Parutakupiu
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not meet the current standards that we'd expect out of a featured list. It has issues with a lack of citations as well as accessibility.
- Lacks appropriate references (need more), especially above a number of tables where unverified factoids sit
- None of the tables are accessible
- No alt text on any of the images
Hopefully someone will take on the task. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this article needs a a lot of work. Feel free to remove it as a Featured List until we can clean it up. We’re swamped at WikiProject Figure Skating right now. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Indian Premier League seasons and results
- Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)
I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [55], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:
- Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [56], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023.
Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament.
Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.- The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves
The tables themselves have multiple problems too:
- The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
- The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
- "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information
As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [57]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment one more issue I've found: Player of the tournament column has flags without country names in violation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Accompany flags with country names. Also, there are players listed as Jamaica, Trinidad etc in violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG (they compete(d) internationally for West Indies, not the constituent countries). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – The main tables were once sourced, but a series of edits in 2021 by Rachit Methwani seemed to remove these sources for no clear reason. Unless someone adds them back, the list fails WP:FLCR #3b. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – per above, ping if someone changes anything. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons
- Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:
- 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
- 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
- 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
- 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
- 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.
The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – Per nomination, ping if there are any changes. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]