The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:48, 24 August 2010 [1].

Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock Performance[edit]

Featured list candidates/Grammy Award for Best Hard Rock Performance/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 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 (see profile). Here is one more! Thanks again to reviewers for taking the time to examine the list and offer suggestions! Another Believer _(Talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Metallica, which were expected to win...." reads extremely strangely to me. Over here in the UK, where band names are treated as plural nouns, we'd say "Metallica, who were expected....." In the States I believe the correct form is to regard band names as singular nouns, so I guess you'd say "Metallica, which was expected....." The current wording seems to me to be a hybrid of both and not correct in either version of the language...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I think "who were" sounds best. I corrected the lead. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I feel harsh even thinking about saying this, but the image captions, while perfectly adequate from image to image, could be more, well, diverse on their way down the page. Could you be more imaginative with what you're saying in each caption than follow the same formula half-a-dozen times?! Is that a little better? I tried to mix up the wording a bit, and add more detail such as date or location of pictured performance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] "and from Armenia and the United Kingdom once." not sure this is really necessary. Out of curiosity, why is that? All of the other Grammy-related FL lists contain nationality details in the lead (some even more specific that this one, such as the recently-promoted Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording). --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It was just the "one-off" awards that I thought were a little irrelevant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Well, I almost never disagree with a reviewer's suggestion (and do realize how much I respect and appreciate your time and suggestions), but I have to say I think it would be best to leave the sentence as is. Acknowledging Australia, while omitting Armenia and the UK, will look as though the nations were overlooked. And for the sake of consistency with other lists, I would leave all three exceptions to the US. If, down the line, there become too many singular exceptions (Best Dance Recording could get to that point easily), then I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge only nations with multiple award recipients. If you feel strongly about removing the aforementioned part of the sentence, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I would be happy to make the change. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] No no, it's no big deal. That's why my original comment said "... not sure ...", no strong feelings at all, so I'm not unhappy with the text as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] OK. Thanks, as always, for your feedback. Let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I feel harsh even thinking about saying this, but the image captions, while perfectly adequate from image to image, could be more, well, diverse on their way down the page. Could you be more imaginative with what you're saying in each caption than follow the same formula half-a-dozen times?!

Is that a little better? I tried to mix up the wording a bit, and add more detail such as date or location of pictured performance. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"and from Armenia and the United Kingdom once." not sure this is really necessary.

Out of curiosity, why is that? All of the other Grammy-related FL lists contain nationality details in the lead (some even more specific that this one, such as the recently-promoted Grammy Award for Best Dance Recording). --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just the "one-off" awards that I thought were a little irrelevant... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I almost never disagree with a reviewer's suggestion (and do realize how much I respect and appreciate your time and suggestions), but I have to say I think it would be best to leave the sentence as is. Acknowledging Australia, while omitting Armenia and the UK, will look as though the nations were overlooked. And for the sake of consistency with other lists, I would leave all three exceptions to the US. If, down the line, there become too many singular exceptions (Best Dance Recording could get to that point easily), then I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge only nations with multiple award recipients. If you feel strongly about removing the aforementioned part of the sentence, or if another reviewer agrees with you, I would be happy to make the change. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, it's no big deal. That's why my original comment said "... not sure ...", no strong feelings at all, so I'm not unhappy with the text as it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks, as always, for your feedback. Let me know if there are any other concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support can't see any other issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments I'm going to scratch the barrel and nitpick, because I've cast one too many !votes lately. Compare ref 1 and 3. If The New York Times Company is in parenthesis, so should be the Tribune Company. Same with ref 6; and for a publication that doesn't have their city in their title, a location would be beneficial here. refs 7, 8, and 9. I think you're using the cite web template when you ought to be using cite news, but don't hold me to that. Ditto ref 10, and needs a location. ref 19 has an author available. Prose looks good, clean up the referencing and I'll gladly support. Courcelles 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] The difference between References 1 and 3 are not something I have control over. I believe the "cite web" templates can produce different ways of displaying the information based on which parameters are used. I added the location for References 6 and 10 (Salt Lake City, Utah for the Deseret News; Wilmington, North Carolina for Star-News). Changed References 7, 8, and 9 to the "cite news" template format. Added author to Reference 19. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments I'm going to scratch the barrel and nitpick, because I've cast one too many !votes lately.

Compare ref 1 and 3. If The New York Times Company is in parenthesis, so should be the Tribune Company.

Same with ref 6; and for a publication that doesn't have their city in their title, a location would be beneficial here.

refs 7, 8, and 9. I think you're using the cite web template when you ought to be using cite news, but don't hold me to that.

Ditto ref 10, and needs a location.

ref 19 has an author available.

Prose looks good, clean up the referencing and I'll gladly support. Courcelles 06:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between References 1 and 3 are not something I have control over. I believe the "cite web" templates can produce different ways of displaying the information based on which parameters are used. I added the location for References 6 and 10 (Salt Lake City, Utah for the Deseret News; Wilmington, North Carolina for Star-News). Changed References 7, 8, and 9 to the "cite news" template format. Added author to Reference 19. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Courcelles 00:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Only minor issue I see is a tense conflict between singular and plural: there's a "were" for Metallica and a "was" for Living Colour. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I added "The band" in front of Living Colour, making the subject singular (so "was" is appropriate). Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)
Comments A really good job has been done in this list with the help of the above reviews, of course, so I am going to nitpick a little. ~~Can you prove that Rock on the Net is reliable? When I was active here it wasn't considered a reliable source, I'd like to know what changed.~~ It was apparently proved reliable at this FAC, but I don't see why... will keep searching. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I believe we should move that link to the external links section until it's proven as reliable.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Current citations #4 and #5 have a retrieval date as "December 11, 2009", but the page wasn't edited on that day. It looks strange. I think that claim was copied from here. Perhaps I should have updated the accessdates the day I updated this article, but I failed to do so likely because I just didn't think of it or remember to do so. Lesson learned, though, because I can see how that might look confusing when examining the article's construction history. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Same thing with citation #3 that has "December 14, 2009" as a retrieval date. Ditto. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Some citations have "The New York Times. The New York Times Company" while the others have "The New York Times (The New York Times Company)." I know it must be because of a template (from the above review), but my question is what's the difference? Why did you use different templates for the similar links? Correct--the use of one template can result in reference displays that differ from one another based on which parameters are entered. In this case, I originally used "cite web" templates, as I almost always do, but was asked to change some of them to the "cite news" template by a previous reviewer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I think all links to newspapers should have cite news template for consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] ~~Why is the navigational template called "Grammy Award years"? Isn't it simpler to just name it "Grammy Awards"? Since there are links other than the "years".~~ I don't know. I use templates, but I don't name them. Discussion about moving or renaming the navigational template should probably take place at the talk page for that template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] What's the difference between List of Grammy Award categories and Category:Grammy Awards? I know one is a list and the other is a category. They have the same links, isn't one of them redundant? If they are somehow different, why isn't the link for that list a part of the navigational template next to the category's link? The difference is the category helps users navigate around Wikipedia, while the list provides users with information about each of the categories (this would especially be true if the list were expanded properly and to its fullest potential). Ok, then why isn't that link in the navigational template?--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It is, actually. "Major awards" along the left side of the template links to the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] It's really hard to notice, wouldn't it be better to move that link in place of the "category" link? It's very unusual to have a category link in the template, actually, I think that link should be used as a category, I mean put [[Category:Gramy... in all pages related to Grammy. Oh yeah, and remove that "see also" section.--Cheetah (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I am terribly sorry, but I am confused by what you wrote. Are you asking me to make changes to the list, or the Grammy template? If changes regarding the template are in order, I think that discussion should take place on the talk page for the template. I am simply using the template and displaying the "See also" section that appears in all of the other Grammy Award-related lists that have featured status (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Dance Recording, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Metal Performance, and Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album, as well as the related featured list MusiCares Person of the Year). Since they were minor edits, I went ahead and made them.--Cheetah (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] --Cheetah (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cheetah (talk)

Comments A really good job has been done in this list with the help of the above reviews, of course, so I am going to nitpick a little.
- ~~Can you prove that Rock on the Net is reliable? When I was active here it wasn't considered a reliable source, I'd like to know what changed.~~
  - It was apparently proved reliable at this FAC, but I don't see why... will keep searching. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe we should move that link to the external links section until it's proven as reliable.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Current citations #4 and #5 have a retrieval date as "December 11, 2009", but the page wasn't edited on that day. It looks strange.
  - I think that claim was copied from here. Perhaps I should have updated the accessdates the day I updated this article, but I failed to do so likely because I just didn't think of it or remember to do so. Lesson learned, though, because I can see how that might look confusing when examining the article's construction history. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing with citation #3 that has "December 14, 2009" as a retrieval date.
  - Ditto. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some citations have "The New York Times. The New York Times Company" while the others have "The New York Times (The New York Times Company)." I know it must be because of a template (from the above review), but my question is what's the difference? Why did you use different templates for the similar links?
  - Correct--the use of one template can result in reference displays that differ from one another based on which parameters are entered. In this case, I originally used "cite web" templates, as I almost always do, but was asked to change some of them to the "cite news" template by a previous reviewer. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think all links to newspapers should have cite news template for consistency.--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Why is the navigational template called "Grammy Award years"? Isn't it simpler to just name it "Grammy Awards"? Since there are links other than the "years".~~
  - I don't know. I use templates, but I don't name them. Discussion about moving or renaming the navigational template should probably take place at the talk page for that template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference between List of Grammy Award categories and Category:Grammy Awards? I know one is a list and the other is a category. They have the same links, isn't one of them redundant? If they are somehow different, why isn't the link for that list a part of the navigational template next to the category's link?
  - The difference is the category helps users navigate around Wikipedia, while the list provides users with information about each of the categories (this would especially be true if the list were expanded properly and to its fullest potential).
    - Ok, then why isn't that link in the navigational template?--Cheetah (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is, actually. "Major awards" along the left side of the template links to the list. --Another Believer _(Talk) 07:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        It's really hard to notice, wouldn't it be better to move that link in place of the "category" link? It's very unusual to have a category link in the template, actually, I think that link should be used as a category, I mean put [[Category:Gramy... in all pages related to Grammy. Oh yeah, and remove that "see also" section.--Cheetah (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I am terribly sorry, but I am confused by what you wrote. Are you asking me to make changes to the list, or the Grammy template? If changes regarding the template are in order, I think that discussion should take place on the talk page for the template. I am simply using the template and displaying the "See also" section that appears in all of the other Grammy Award-related lists that have featured status (Best Alternative Music Album, Best Dance Recording, Best Female Rock Vocal Performance, Best Male Rock Vocal Performance, Best Metal Performance, and Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album, as well as the related featured list MusiCares Person of the Year).
        Since they were minor edits, I went ahead and made them.--Cheetah (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cheetah (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to offer suggestions. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns that need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:14, 22 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.