My first time nominating a featured anything, so let's not be too rough :) I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a featured list such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some strange whitespace at the top
DoneSpaces removed.
Image captions: "Shetty on the sets" => "Shetty on the set" (she was only on one set when the picture was taken)
Done
"Shetty's performance earned her two filmfare nominations" - capital S on Filmfare
Done
"The 2000 Dhadkan" => "The 2000 film Dhadkan"
Done added action drama
"marked turning point" => "marked a turning point"
Done
"under the Best Actress category award ceremonies" => "under the Best Actress category at various awards ceremonies"
Done
"by featuring lead female" - "by featuring as the lead female"
Done
"cop drama" => "police drama" (cop is too slangy)
Done
"earned her nomination" => "earned her a nomination"
Done
"for Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award and for Best Comedian as well." => "for the Filmfare Best Supporting Actress and Best Comedian awards."
Actually, is the Best Comedian award a Filmfare award? It doesn't seem to be mentioned in our article on the awards........?
Done Actually it's best supporting actress. there isn't specific award for comedy
"after winning 2007 British reality television series" => "after winning the 2007 British reality television series"
Done
"Shetty made her debut in South Indian cinema through Tamil-language sleeper musical hit action film Mr. Romeo" - a lot going on here. Would be better as "Shetty made her debut in South Indian cinema in the Tamil-language musical action film Mr. Romeo, which proved to be a sleeper hit"
Done
"Shetty afterwards played lead roles" => "Shetty subsequently played lead roles"
Done
"in 2000 action drama Azad starred with" => "in 2000 action drama Azad with"
Done
"She had successful career" => "She had a successful career"
Done
"with three releases like," - I think all this can be condensed to just "with"
Done
"In addition to acting in the films" => "In addition to acting in films"
Done
"Shetty is celebrity endorser" => "Shetty is a celebrity endorser"
Done
"reality shows Zara Nachke Dikha, Nach Baliye, Super Dancer." => "reality shows Zara Nachke Dikha, Nach Baliye and Super Dancer."
"Shetty's performance earned her two filmfare nominations" - Filmfare still need to be capitalised
Done
Also, given that you say "two Filmfare nominations", I think you could pipe the actual awards to simply "Lux New Face of the Year" and "Best Supporting Actress"
Done
"Films including action drama Aag, romantic drama Aao Pyaar Karen, comedy Haathkadi, Chhote Sarkar " - needs "and" before the last title
Done
"Her comic performance as an eccentric fisherwoman in 2002 action-drama release Rishtey earned her a nomination for Filmfare Best Supporting Actress Award" - needs "the" before Filmfare
Done
Also, the refs at the end of this sentence are either side of the full stop??
Done
"Shetty made her debut in South Indian cinema in the Tamil-language musical action film Mr. Romeo" - film title should be in italics and also wikilinked
Done
"with releases like, Preethsod Thappa" - don't need comma after like
Done
"vocal about the issues" => "vocal about issues"
Done
"Shetty has served as a talent judge for reality shows Zara Nachke Dikha, Nach Baliye, Super Dancer" - need "and" before the last title
I have noticed that something looks very odd with a lot of the refs, specifically with regard to the "first1" and "last1" fields. As an example you have <ref name="racism">{{cite news |last1=Celebrity |first1=Narratives of |title=Shilpa complains of racism |url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/jan/18/bigbrother.raceintheuk |accessdate=9 April 2020 |work=The Guardian |agency=Guardian Media Group |publisher=Guardian Media Group |date=18 January 2007}}</ref>. The "first1" and "last1" fields are used for the name of the author of the source, in this case Stephen Brook. Not sure why you have put the words "Narratives of celebrity", which don't appear anywhere in the source, in those fields......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed some of them. But there are references for example ref # 10, name of the author is missing in links. Kindly suggest what to mention in such cases.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣05:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are still many refs where random words are in the first and last fields, e.g. refs 4, 57, 81, 85. There are also quite a lot of refs where the title shown is not the actual title of the source e.g. ref 1, the title is shown as "Shetty ventured into acting in 1993 with Baazigar" but the actual title of the source is "Raj Kundra wants someone to write a book on Shilpa Shetty", similarly for ref 17 the title of the source is "Have Bollywood Celebs Finally Embraced Feminism?" which is nothing like the title shown in the article (the title shown is a fragment of a sentence from somewhere in the middle of the article). Please check all the refs and make sure the correct info is in the correct fields...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Vacant all first and last field. Although, with regards to title name; I have tried to cover most of them but some of refs are having only Shilpa Shetty as their title so I have put some random title. Let me know if missed somewhere.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣06:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the title of the source is simply "Shilpa Shetty", then that should be the title shown here. You shouldn't just pick a random different title because you think the actual title isn't interesting enough...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you have made the films table sortable, you need to edit the directors column so that they sort in surname order, not forename order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After writing the above, I checked the Kareena Kapoor list and the director column definitely sorts by surname (e.g. JP Dutta sorts under D) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What have you changed? I just checked and Anil Sharma still sorts under A, Harry Baweja under H, Vimal Kumar under K, etc. They need to sort based on the surname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have just looked and you have put all the sort keys in the wrong place. You have put them right at the start of each row. They need to be against the cell they apply to i.e. the director -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. Directors like Priyadarshan, Revathi doesn't have surname mentioned on their respective article, so I have kept the field blank. Please have a look.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS☣13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I forgot to check back. Still a couple of issues with the refs - refs 57 and 78 still have made-up titles. Also, IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source so could do with being replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the name of her roles, you should sort them by last name, other wise it sorts them alphabetically by first name, which is strange. ~ HAL33323:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Planning to claim WikiCup points for this review.)
Em dashes are used where they should be en dash (action—comedy should be action–comedy) or hyphen (top-grossing and Tamil-language), throughout. There's a difference in all three. Bit nuanced, see MOS:ENBETWEEN and MOS:HYPHEN. Hope I've got these right. I think The Rambling Man's comment above was only about the "Notes" column, not the lead text.
Done ✅
"After initial success Shetty's films" – think a comma after "success" would be better phrasing.
Done ✅
Films including action drama Aag, romantic drama Aao Pyaar Karen, comedy Haathkadi and Chhote Sarkar garnered her negative reviews. The Rotten Tomatoes source doesn't actually say this, only mentioning flops around that point. Better referencing mentioning each of the specific films in turn is needed.
Done ✅ Ref #5 satisfies the claim mate.
"Best Actress category at various award ceremonies" – Think it's usually more informative to mention some award names rather than the category alone. Just an illustrative example or two needed here.
Done ✅
"following an international racism controversy" – Sounds like she could have been the racist here. Make it clear she was the subject, e.g. "after comments made by other contestants about Shetty fell afoul of Ofcom rules and sparked an international controversy over racism" (with a ref mentioning Ofcom).
afoul of Ofcom rules Not getting. Can you please elaborate.
I think sleeper hit is a rare enough term to link.
Done ✅
"Ref(s)" abbreviation is usually expanded over by hovering via use of {{Abbr|Ref(s)|References}}
Done ✅
The main table should have a caption e.g. using sronly for people who use a screen reader.
Done ✅
Forgive me if it's cultural ignorance on my part, but check that "Role(s)" entries are sorting by the surname and not the given name—"Roma Khurana" looks out of place.
I have been asked by one of editor to mention Roles part be in sort manner.
Refs #7 and #41 should have "Rediff News" as a work rather than "Rediff" as a publisher. Refs #20, #21 also look like they should have website names in italics.
Done ✅
Ref #11, Metro, is red at WP:RSP, very much not appropriate for sensitive race-related topics like this. Can just be removed.
Done ✅
Ref #13 doesn't verify that Mr. Romeo was a sleeper hit.
Done ✅ Actually, a tamil movie review website claims but not sure if the website is right ref so avoided adding it.
Mate I was wondering if it's mandatory to use italics. I checked Kareena Kapoor filmography, there is |publisher in most of references.
We use italics for news source titles and non-italics for publishers e.g. The Guardian is the name of a newspaper (published by the Guardian Media Group) but BBC is the name of a company. — Bilorv (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it mate. Please check and let me know if any more improvements required.
Ref #36 says Pardesi Babu was 2005, not 1998. Which date is right?
1998. I am sorry but what part of ref saying 2005?
The Pardesi Babu source still reports conflicting information so we need an additional source confirming which is the correct date. Ref #5 does not satisfy the claim Films including action drama Aag, romantic drama Aao Pyaar Karen, comedy Haathkadi and Chhote Sarkar garnered her negative reviews because it only mentions gross income, nothing to do with reviews. The "sleeper hit" information seems to come from a non-reliable source not cited in the article, which violates WP:V. Also, sparked an international racism controversy over racism can just be sparked an international controversy over racism and Filmibeat is still spelled incorrectly. I've made a lot of replies and still a lot of issues are not being substantively addressed so I will have to reluctantly oppose in a few days unless these issues can be solved by the nominator. — Bilorv (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added new source with respect to release date of Pardesi Babu. Done ✅
Aag, romantic drama Aao Pyaar Karen, comedy Haathkadi and Chhote Sarkar garnered her negative reviews Have mentioned films box office status, I could not find reliable source that could prove review of her performance. Done ✅
Again I could not find reliable source so removed "sleeper hit". Done ✅
'sparked an international controversy over racism' Done ✅
Director comment – I was asked to come here and address the fact that TRM's oppose has remained intact despite responses to most of his concerns. Upon looking at the list, there are a couple of issues that remain unaddressed. The big one is that row scopes are still not in the tables, which goes against style guidelines. Mahesh Babu filmography, another page currently at FLC, has row scopes included, so that could serve as an article that will show you the formatting required. Also, TRM commented that sortable tables should have repeated links when possible. It wouldn't concern me much to leave the language links as is, but the directors and awards should probably be linked in each appearance. Just adding links to the cells that don't already have them would be enough to fix the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not done To my knowledge Zee Gold Bollywood Awards is given to performance is films and Gold Awards is given to performance in television. Shetty received the award for the movie. So cannot link to Gold Awards. Correct if wrong.
"earning her several nominations under the Best Actress category" - in the
Done ✅
"after comments made by other contestants about Shetty fell afoul of Ofcom rules" - due to comments about her made by other contestants broke Ofcom rules
Done ✅
Wikilink Ofcom
Done ✅
"and sparked an" - more formal; caused an
Done ✅
"Shetty made her debut in South Indian cinema in the Tamil-language musical action film Mr. Romeo." - in which year?
Done ✅
"She had a successful career in Kannada cinema with releases like" - such as
Done ✅
Both tables need to include the scope"row" field for all of the rows to meet MOS:DTT
Done ✅
Ref 1 is missing the date it was the published and the agency that provided NDTV with the story
Done ✅
Ref 3 is missing the date The Times of India published the story
Published date is there 24 September 2019 in the reference.
Ref 12 is from the Metro, which is not considered generally reliable per WP:RSPSOURCES
Done ✅ That's strange.
Refs 17, 50 are missing Press Trust of India as the agency for the respective stories
Ref 17 story belongs to IANS agency and mentioned already. Ref 50 is from Bollywood Hungama.
Ref 18 is missing Indo-Asian News Service as the agency
Ref 18 is a story covered by HT correspondent. Nothing to do with Indo-Asian News Service.
Ref 21 is dead and will need archiving or replacing
It's not dead rather still accessible.
Refs 22, 44 and 73 needs the date the respective sources was published
Done ✅ for ref 73. For Refs 22, 44 Bollywood Hungama doesn't publish date.
Ref 44 title: "She had a successful career in Kannada cinema with releases like" - the title is missing the words "Happy Birthday Shilpa Shetty:" at the beginning of it
Ref 44 is for Lal Badshah. Nothing is mentioned the sentence you wrote.
The link for Ref 71 needs to be fixed because it links to the wrong article
No, ref is linked to correct article. However there was problem with title of ref. Fixed.
Ref 79 is a duplicate of Ref 11 and will need to be deleted
Ref 79 is from Deccan Herald. Ref 11 is from The Financial Express (India).
The date formats for Refs 81 and 82 should not include the parentheses
When I clicked on ref 20 it wouldn't go to a specific page, just went to the home?
Done Added new ref
Ref 21 missing date
Done
That's all I got, consistency and reliability looks good for the rest. I linked some publishers since only some were linked, take a look at the refs and double check that all publishers/works who have a WP article are linked. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Natalie Portman is an Israeli-American actress who has received various awards and nominations, including an Academy Award and two Golden Globe Awards. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk11:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2010, Portman appeared in Darren Aronofsky's psychological horror Black Swan, In the film she plays Nina Sayers, a 28-year-old dancer in a New York City ballet company," - think these two sentences can be merged together
"for which she won the Academy Award for Best Actress," - think this can begin a new sentence to avoid being a run-on sentence
"and she was nominated" - and nominations
"Portman has received one Teen Choice Award nomination" - received a
The acronyms (MCU) aren't needed since they are used only once
"In 2016, Portman starred in Pablo Larraín's biographical drama Jackie, in the film she portrayed Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, in the days when she was First Lady in the White House." - In 2016, Portman starred in Pablo Larrain's biographical drama Jackie as Jacqueline Kennedy, when she was First Lady in the White House.
Wikilink White House
On the whole, the years in the appropriate rows that are not wikilinked should be linked to the individual ceremonies
Same as with the awards in the convenient rows
"EMA board of directors Ongoing Commitment Award" - Board of Directors
Wikilink Mick LaSalle
Ref 2 work: "Academ of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" - typo; missing the "y"
Ref 7 is missing the date it was published
Ref 19 title: "Winners 2016 Washington Dc Area Film Critics Association"." - Dc should be "DC"
Ref 46 is missing the date it was published and should mention the source is in Dutch
Sentence about Black Swan ends in a comma rather than a full stop
"Since 2011, Portman has received one Teen Choice Award nomination" - why "since 2011"? You could equally say "Since 1981, Portman has received one Teen Choice Award nomination". It just reads oddly......
"Best Depiction Of Nudity, Sexuality, or Seduction" => "Best Depiction of Nudity, Sexuality, or Seduction"
"EMA board of directors" => "EMA Board of Directors"
Russian Awards - she was nominated for specific roles in 2007 but not in later years?
Sorting order on the "result" column goes Won > Nominated > 3rd > 2nd > Runner-up, which doesn't seem right
The article still has "Since 2011, Portman has received a Teen Choice Award nomination for playing the Marvel Cinematic Universe character, Jane Foster" - why "since 2011"? I can't see any reason for that being there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case it needs re-phrasing to "Portman has received a Teen Choice Award nomination for playing the Marvel Cinematic Universe character, Jane Foster, a role she has played since 2011" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I just noticed - under the MTV Awards, you rowspan Black Swan across three rows, but against the Alliance of Women Film Journalists you don't do the same. Better to do it the same way everywhere to be consistent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doing now, may take a second from the amount of refs. Based on your other lists though, I doubt I'll find much, if any :) Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 52 author and date missing
Ref 68 date? (or looks like just year in this case)
Following the successful promotion of List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments earlier today, I am pleased to nominate another list of Smash tournaments. Unlike Ultimate, which will still hold major tournaments in the future (pending the end of COVID-19), every major Smash for Wii U tournament to be held has been held. This list is finalized.
I've taken the lessons from the previous nomination and incorporated them into this article - sorting, centered references, not overlinking cities, the works... I think. So hopefully it'll be as smooth or smoother than the last nomination. I am still trying to source an image of the lead, though I didn't want to hold up the nomination because I might never get one; I've reached out to some people on Flickr asking them to re-license photos and haven't had any luck, but I'll look for more people to ask later this week.
I'd be tempted to simply move one of the existing images into the lead, probably from one of the sections that has more than one
"2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title, Ultimate, released" => "2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title, Ultimate, was released"
Note A isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
"Entrant counts are drawn tournament brackets." => "Entrant counts are drawn from tournament brackets."
Five editions of the PGR rankings were released, covering tournaments between 2015 and 2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title - as this leads on, maybe "from 2015 to 2018 - the year..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Lee Vilenski. I'm not able to do the FA review tonight, but I will make sure to get to it this week. My replies are below in the order of your comments above.
2) Done. The wording may need tweaking; any feedback is welcome.
3) I've made the change. I've seen both and have no preference.
4) Broke it into two sentences. How does it look now?
5) My strategy was to link to cities that are small enough to have "City, State" titles, and I linked to the whole article title. I can easily change it, if you think I should.
I think so, I'm pretty sure the City, state format can be more for disambiguation rather than the size of the place. It's a bit of an easter egg to link to [[X, Y]], rather than [[X, Y|X]], Y
@Lee Vilenski: I've changed the links to be city-only and added a note to explain the two Google Sheets. I'm not really thrilled at the idea of renaming entrants in the table though. The main source for that column, smash.gg, uses entrants, and it's worth noting that not everyone that entered actually participated (every event has a few no-shows). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero Hey! Long time, no chat. My responses are in the order of your comments above:
I checked what the page looks like in 1080p and it looks fine. I guess that it'd cause problems in smaller monitors, but if I pull the images, people are going to ask for more images, so I feel kind of stuck here.
Yes, that's a reaction to being told not to link major cities in my last FLC. Would it be better just to delink all of them?
There was one problematic source that was added by another editor, which I've since removed. The remainder of the sources I think are fine for what they're being used for. I would like it if a mainstream publication like ESPN covered every Smash tournament, but that's not going to happen, and while EventHubs isn't the greatest, the results table isn't terribly controversial or likely to be challenged. Smash.gg is self-published by the tournament organizer, but is only used for the number of entrants and the location, which seems to be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. I tried to use better sources, where at all possible, in the lead.
"Matches are played as to best-of-three sets"- should be either Matches are played as best-of-three sets or Matches are held to the best-of-three sets
"Tournaments use the double-elimination format; after their first loss players are sent to a lower bracket to compete against other people that have lost a match, and after their second loss players are eliminated from the tournament." - competition to avoid close repetition of the same word in the same sentence
"who is considered the best Smash for Wii U player," - considered by whom?
"after their first loss players are sent to a lower bracket to compete against other people that have lost a match," - match losers
"and after their second loss" - following
"stated in 2018 that you could make more" - better; one could earn more
"and that he taken home only $45,000" - more formal; earned
EVO should not be linked twice in the lede
"Smash Bros. tournaments are generally seeded so that the best players do not face off against each other until the later stages of a tournament." repetition of the word "tournament" in the same sentence
"and factored six additional major tournaments into the rankings." - more
That's all I got, reliability looks OK. Not a huge fan of the use of Smashboards, but given it's mostly statistical information cited from there, it's probably fine. Fix these minor things and you're good for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 Links and names/dates are done. Panda Global/PGStats are only used to cite the tournament listings. That their ranking is considered the gold standard is cited by "Van Allen, Eric (20 January 2018). "The Competitive Smash 4 Scene Is Anxiously Awaiting Nintendo's Next Big Move". Kotaku. Retrieved 31 July 2020.". I can probably find more sources that say the same thing (I have two in the list of Ultimate tournaments), but it's not something I'd expect to be seriously contested. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that reasoning is fine by me. Good work here, the rest of the reliability looks good – pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A total of 49 of these number one country song lists have now been successfully promoted to FL, so here's what I hope will be the 50th in the set. Please note that my WP time will be minimal between August 8th and 18th, but otherwise I will respond super-promptly to comments, and anything raised between those dates will be jumped on as soon as I am back full-time if it hasn't already been..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is in pretty good shape already. Remarkably little to poke at.
"In August 1964 Jim Reeves achieved the first of several posthumous number ones with "I Guess I'm Crazy"; the singer had been killed in a plane crash the previous month." - Please clarify "first of several". Was this the first time for this person, the first time anyone appeared on the list posthumously, or the first posthumous entry of 1964?
Lefty Frizzell's image being wider than anyone else's looks a tad strange (the image is taller than the section at 1440p, so the lead image and the body images are stacked one on top of another). Consider making all four pictures the same width.
ChrisTheDude: The replacement image of Johnny Cash has the same concern as the first one. I'm generally distrustful of own work claims where the upload is a heavily cropped old photo and the uploader has minimal edits (Commons or cross-wiki). I've seen too many turn out to be not own work. However, it's not something to hold the nomination up over, so I'm going to go ahead and Support now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: - I have done the first one but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the second one, because that comma is needed to end the subordinate clause which starts with the comma after Frizzell's name....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I noted was the image relevance. Although there aren't any good images of Connie Smith circa 1964, there a are a few from Johnny Cash from exactly 1964 or around then. There's one from 1964 but it isn't the best. This one is from 5 years later but is of higher quality. At least he's actually performing than just sitting in the White House.
@HAL333: that latter image was actually in the article at the point when it was nominated, but another editor (above) said it should be removed because he/she doubted the copyright claim on Commons was genuine...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This list is about records and statistics of association football club Burnley F.C.. It includes honours, club records, managerial records, and player records. I have used other similar featured lists as a benchmark. Looking forward to the comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Drive-by comment: "All records and statistics are correct as of the 2019–20 season." - how can they be when the season hasn't finished yet.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the First Division (now the Premier League)" - the First Division did not become the Premier League, the Prem was a completely newly-formed league, so this needs re-wording
The Premier League succeeded the First Division as the first tier of English football, so it was meant like that. But removed "now the PL" nevertheless. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"all the top four professional divisions" - as there are only four professional divisions, I think the word "top" is not needed
"The 1914 FA Cup trophy is presented" - maybe slightly pedantic, but this kinda makes it sound like it was only the trophy for the 1914 FA Cup. I suggest removing 1914 here ans sticking "in 1914" at the end
You list the club's first match in such tinpot competitions as the Watney Cup, but don't list their first game in the Premier League - this seems a rather glaring omission......
You list the largest home attendance in the league and League Cup but no the FA Cup - is that info not available?
The club's largest home attendance was actually in an FA Cup match (against Huddersfield Town), so it would be unnecessary to list it again. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the sub appearances are not in bold in the total column? They are a part of the total so it seems odd to "de-emphasise" them in this way.
"Most capped player:" - this is very trivial, I'm not sure it's worth noting. Is it really worth highlighting that a player with 79 caps in his career happened to gain just a single one of them during an illustrious Burnley career of six weeks or so?
Notes - "It stood as a record for unbeaten games in a single season in English professional football until Arsenal went unbeaten through the whole of the 2003–04 season." - not strictly correct as worded, they only went unbeaten through the whole of the league season, so this needs rewording.
I think this still needs a slight reword. It should say "It stood as a record for unbeaten league games in a single season in English professional football....."
Where is material in the lead cited by the FCHD link, e.g. the date of formation, the turning pro, the pressure on the FA etc?
It's all cited in the prose (honours section). "Burnley have played in one of the four professional levels of English football from 1888 to the present day" is absent in the body of the text and therefore cited. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about the profligate use of bold text, and per MOS:BOLD it's probably not useful.
I assume you meant the honours section? I unbolded the names of the competitions, as done on the similar Arsenal page. Let me know what you think. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The club turned professional in 1883" previously you said they won an amateur trophy in the same year...
That trophy was won in the summer, the club turned professional a few months later. Tried to clarify it by putting "by the end of 1883". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also removed the second sentence. The club won the Hospital Cup (the successor) multiple times over the following seasons, but mainly with a squad filled with second team/amateur players. Didn't want to disrupt the "flow" of the paragraph. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" the 1920–21 First" again, that easter egg-ness. You have six types of target (English football season, specific division season, play-off finals, FA Cup season, trophy final, Burnley season) but all are piped in the same way so the reader stands practically no chance of knowing where they might land. Using better pipes will alleviate this.
You have descriptions of the FA Cup under the "League" heading, bit confusing.
It's worth linking somewhere to English football league system so the "tier 1" etc nomenclature can be better understood by non-experts.
That's linked now. Do you also think other rounds/editions should be linked as well, such as in "Record League Cup defeat: Manchester City 5–0 Burnley, first round, 11 August 1999"? WA8MTWAYC (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Minor quibble: a lot of the records are sourced to a 2007 book. Thirteen years have passed since its publication so I'm just nervous that we can't be sure those records haven't been beaten in the meantime...
Relax (although I understand the nervosity), I have checked on them numerous times and few records have been broken since 2007. Some records however have and those were reported in the (local) media such as the points record of 93, and are obviously cited. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" World Cup Finals" not the link you want it to be.
Be consistent with row scopes. For lists of players, I'd expect the player to be the scope, not the number they are in the list.
How do we know the transfers tables are complete? Is there any list reliably stating that each five are the top five?
There unfortunately isn't really one. Transfermarkt lists the record arrivals and departures of the club, but the figures of e.g. Danny Ings and Andre Gray aren't correct. There is a "logical order" in the inclusion and ranking of this list, when e.g. looking at the headlines and their publishing dates. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes c and e are identical so should be reused.
Refs 23, 24, 31, spaced hyphen/year range hyphen: should be en-dash. Check others.
Refs 73 to 82, publisher becomes the norm in the refs, i.e. The Guardian and not The Guardian etc. Be consistent.
If the part about Burnley being one of the six Lancashire clubs in the first edition of the Football League isn't cited anywhere (I don't see it in the body), then a reference should be added for it in the lead.
Everything looks good. Consistent formatting and use of reliable sources – I tweaked the ISBNS. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Along with the Newbery Medal (already a FL), the Caldecott Medal is one of the two most prestigious awards in American children's literature. Winning the award can mean hundreds of thousands of copies of the book are sold. I look forward to the feedback offered by reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a bit short and could do with another paragraph. This could talk about the first winner, most recent winner, the person who has won most times, etc etc.
"beginning with 1937 publications." => "first awarded in 1938 for 1937 publications."
"The number of Honors or runners-up had always been one to five, and it had been two to four since 1994" => "The number of Honors or runners-up had always been between one and five, and it had been between two and four from 1994"
I have rewritten the lead to expand it and I think the rest of your comments don't apply to this revised version. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
"awarding a medal to the best illustrator, "who had created the most distinguished picture book of the year."" => "awarding a medal to the illustrator "who had created the most distinguished picture book of the year.""
"the award helped draw-in American artists to the field of children's books" => "the award helped draw American artists into the field of children's books"
"When the award was founded books" => "When the award was founded, books"
"The committee had noted other books of merit" => "The committee noted other books of merit"
"which despite being awarded by the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC)," => "which, despite being awarded by the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC),"
"lists the original the Children's Librarian's Section" - eh?
"A picture book, according the award criteria" => "A picture book, according to the award criteria"
"are judged on their in their artistic technique" - some extraneous words there
"must have been published in English the United States first" - think there's at least one word missing here
"Picture books for any audience up to age May 14 be considered" - think something has gone wrong here
"committee members formally nominate 7 books" - write seven as a word
"and hold vote on the winner" - word missing here again, I think
"The winner must receive at least 8 first place votes and be at least 8 points ahead of the second place finisher" - write the numbers as words
"Honor books may be chosen from runner-ups to the winner or selected in a separate ballot" => "Honor books may be chosen from runner-ups to the winner or be selected in a separate ballot"
"Anita Silvey, children's book author, editor, and critic, suggests they might even be the most important book awards, "No other award has the economic significance of the Newbery and Caldecott”" => "Anita Silvey, children's book author, editor, and critic, suggests they might even be the most important book awards, saying that "no other award has the economic significance of the Newbery and Caldecott”"
"According to Marcus" - I would re-state this forename as it's been quite a while since he was mentioned and for a moment I thought "who's Marcus?"
"most winners were written at the elementary age level" - what is an "elementary age level"? Is there an appropriate Wikilink that would clarify?
"It also found that unlike recipients" => "It also found that, unlike recipients"
"The Horn Book Magazine editor Martha Parravano" - italicise the title
Two of the image captions for some reason refer to the person only by their surname and do not Wikilink them - fix these
"Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire who won the third Caldecott Medal in 1940 worked together as a writing and illustrative team." => "Ingri and Edgar Parin d'Aulaire, who won the third Caldecott Medal in 1940, worked together as a writing and illustrative team."
"David Macaulay, had been disappointed not to " - no reason for that comma
"This One Summer was the first, and as of 2020, and only" - the second "and" should not be there
In the Patrick McDonnell caption, Mutts and Me...Jane should be in italics
In the Christian Robinson caption, the book title should be in italics and there should be a comma after de la Pena's name
"Mary GrandPré illustrated the covers and chapter illustrations for the Harry Potter books" - for all editions? Or just the American versions?
Thank you for the ping. I have already committed myself to three FAC reviews so I unfortunately do not have time at the present to help with this review. If this FLC is still up when I am done with those three reviews, I will try my best to come back here. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll submit this as part of my WikiCup contributions.
I'd be tempted to move those odd three refs out of the lead and into the main body. They look odd sitting there on their own. Even the one on the quote as that's covered again in the main body.
"worthy runners-up," maybe "runners-up they deem worthy"
"runner-ups "Honor" " why isn't this "runners-up" as before?
The point here is that they explicitly changed the name from runners-up to Honor. I edited to try to make this more clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"English and in the United States first and be " maybe "English, in the United States first and be " to avoid "and ... and ..."
"Publishers Weekly " should be in italics.
"changed and tweaked" these mean essentially the same things?
"simultaneously to " in?
"any honor books. Honor books may" repetitive.
The table calls them "Honor Books" be consistent with capitalisation.
"The annual number of runners-up has ranged from one to six, same as for the Newbery Medal during the same timespan, from 1938. Indeed, for twenty years from 1993 to 2012 there were two to four Honors every year." not sure this is needed at all, it's self-evident from the table I think.
"Nothing At All" -> "Nothing at All"
"who won two honors and the Caldecott Medal in 1950," this is confusing, he didn't win two "Honors books" did he?
"Both of Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott winners have been adapted into films." unreferenced.
Check all captions are referenced if they're making claims not substantiated in the list/prose.
For me, the row scope element should be the primary element, and that's the name of the illustrator, not the year of the award.
Listen I know how much I don't know about tables. I have no objection to this change, but there is scoping for each column right now not just year and it follows the practice at both Newbery Medal and the various Hugo Awards FLs (e.g. Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation which have been my templates here. Unless I'm still not understanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal. I know the cols have scope, that's fine, it was just the element you had selected for the row scopes, in my mind it's the most important element of information for each row, and that's the illustrator names, not the year, but I guess I should just be grateful there are scopes there at all! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Multiple award winners" typically these tables are initially sorted by the number of awards, not alphabetical order.
Minor point, the source for the table has 2013 as retrieval year, but presumably it was accessed post-2013 for the post-2013 receipients!
New York Times Book Review. -> The New York Times Book Review.
"To be eligible for a Caldecott book the book…" --> "To be eligible for a Caldecott the book…"
"… the book must be published in English, in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator" is clunky (due to sentence structure, "published" is implied to precede each subsequent statement, which fails for the final "be drawn…" statement). My suggestion would be: "… the book must be published in English in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator."
"It can also increases…" --> "It can also increase…"
Generally, this article has a lot of missing commas. For example, this sentence feels like a run-on sentence due to lack of commas: "Until 1958 a previous winner could win again only by unanimous vote of the committee and in 1963 joint winners were first permitted." Or consider this sentence, which should use a semicolon and a comma after "however": "In recent years there has been an increase in the number of minority characters and illustrators recognized, however this is something which has fluctuated over the history of the award." These are far from the only examples, and further proofreading is needed here.
Additionally, you should also bracket appositives with commas on both sides. I also use commas after introductory adverb phrases; for instance, in the second example, I would follow "In recent years" with a comma, though this is based more on personal preference. For more, see MOS:COMMA.
Use {{'}} for the apostrophe in "Where the Wild Things Are's"
Remove double bolding for Marcia Brown in section Multiple award winners
Why is there two commas for ref 1? Well actually for this one "Association for Library Service to Children" should be the author, "American Library Association" the publisher, 2018 for the year. The edition parameter is usually for "1st, 2nd, special, Anniversary" edition stuff so I wouldn't worry about that
Refs 2 and 4 are the same?
What is ref 6? A PDF or something? If so add "|format=PDF"
Huh, that's weird that the template doesn't generate a "pp." or something. You could consider adding it yourself but it's probably fine without it. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since ref 14 is in the NYT archive you should add the page and section numbers
Refs 19 and 20 missing dates
Ref 22 date needed
wrong date for ref 27?
What does "p. 55+" mean in ref 28? And is there a missing URL?
Both people in ref 29 should be listed as editors, |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editorlast2=...
Ref 34 should probably be spelled out as The Wall Street Journal
Retrieval date for ref 33?
I would rather see the American Library Association and Association for Library Service to Children spelled out every time rather than abbreviated
Thanks Aza24 for doing this source review. I believe I have implemented your suggested improvements with the exception to the answer of a question above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article now meets the FL criteria. After recently promoting 2019 in cue sports, I have used this experience to craft the year prior. Let me know what thoughts you have on the list :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why Moscow and London aren't linked in the first table?
I usually don't link major geographical locations - per WP:GEOLAND... But I haven't been consistent here. I can do it either way. For now, I've linked the ones that aren't linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)12:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to support this being an FL. Everything is supported with appropriate citations, and I think it is a comprehensive list of events. If there was a way to incorporate some more pictures without spoiling the overall look of the page that would be great, but I don't think lack of more images should be a blocker to FL for this article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IBSF World Billiards Championship (two events) could probably be added. (I think I forgot about this tournament for the 2019 article.)
The link here is for the IBSF World Under-21 Snooker Championship, not for the World Women's Snooker event. Both won by the same player! I think I've sorted this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned that it was Williams' third world title, but not that it was Ng On-yee's. Is this because of the tournaments' relative notability?
A few days after 20 June 2018, based on the only news article I can dig up. The apparent lack of coverage suggests to me that these can be omitted. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The year of 2018 included professional tournaments surrounding table-top cue sports" a curious start, the tournaments didn't really "surround" the sports, they were tournaments in which those sports were competed in. And you have "table-top" here to distinguish these cue sports from "non-table-top" cue sports? What are those?
"notable amateur cue sports " using which inclusion criteria?
I've denoted this as "international". We include things like European championships, but not the English championship, so this seems like a suitable distinction. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead feels a little short. You could cover a few other things, like Gilchrist pretty much sweeping billiards, etc.
"In events where there was more than one" are we to assume when there wasn't more than one event that it was always men then?
events are generally open to both genders, which is why I haven't denoted such. There's usually a women's event if the regular events isn't mixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A shame there are no images outside the lead. I wonder if you could add an image for each section?
The issue is the lack of images for people I'd like to show. For instance, for pool, the obvious targets are Joshua Filler, Han Yu and even Skyler Woodward as MVP of the Mosconi Cup. They don't have images. I could add one for Neils Feijen though I suppose. Would this not stretch the tables though? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the theory behind whether someone should have a red link or not be linked at all? For instance, Therese Klompenhouwer won a world title, but doesn't even have a red link?
I've gone ahead and linked everyone. 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Ref 20 doesn't seem to contain any of the information it's supposed to be referencing. I'll do a closer inspection of refs later, but that was just a spot check.
Ref 22 looks like lazy referencing as well. The tournament results do appear to be uniquely referenceable (PDFs for each) so that's what should be linked here, not a generic search engine landing page.
I'm not seeing where most of the dates for these events are referenced? Don't forget, we can't rely on the target articles for the tournaments for that kind of information.
Refs, I'll take a closer look on a second pass as I noted, but quickly, BBC Sport refs, one seems to include BBC as a publisher, and one seems to link BBC Sport, but not the first one.
The threshold of inclusion you gave is "The events in this list are professional, pro-am, or international notable amateur cue sports tournaments from the year of 2018." However, the article might benefit from some prose about governing bodies or world rankings or some other way to make it clear why these are the notable events, (and implicitly these are the all of the notable events), especially when it comes to the amateur events. I don't know enough about the subject matter to be able to make any more specific recommendation that that.
I've added a small catchall for this. Realistically it is a little difficult to say "these events are all the only notable ones", but I've explained why the amateur tournaments (specifically in snooker) are here, they are sort of qualification events for the main tour, and as such get a lot of press. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The opening two sentences are kind of awkward/mushy. Consider finding a way to combine them and make it a bit punchier. Something like, "In 2018, championships were held across three continents to determine the best players in major cue sports, including snooker, pool, and billiards."
Since every table has the same five columns, consider using ! scope="col" style="width: nn%;" to unify the widths across the tables (i.e. make the Tournaments column the same width in every table).
The references for the dates in sections like Pool and Union Mondiale de Billard competitions should be moved out of the dates column and into the references column.
The references for the tournaments in the Three-Cushion World Cup section should be moved out of the tournaments column and into the references column.
Sure. I'm happy to add images, but I don't know how to do so, and not destroy the table formatting, or have lots of blank space. Usually I use images next to prose so this doesn't happen. I have added one image to show you what I mean, if you can suggest a better way of doing this, let me know and I'll add more. If not, I'll remove the one I've put in. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)08:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying it should change, but is there a reason you used the format "Russia (Moscow)" instead of "Moscow, Russia"? Is it just so that the table is sorted by country?
The Three-Cushion World Cup section uses the name of the city only. If you're going to use the "Russia (Moscow)" format everywhere else, it should be applied to this section as well.
Consider changing: "some matches and tournaments are held as doubles, or team events" --> "some matches and tournaments are held as doubles or as team events"
@Lee Vilenski: The prose and tables look much better now. As for the pictures, if you add an image next to every table, and lock them to be the same width, all of the tables will also stay the same width, relative to each other (which is what I did in the Smash lists). However, you've got a lot of small tables and that could wind up messy. Maybe just add an image to the top of Billiards and one to the top of Snooker then, and call it a day? If you need help cropping vertical images into horizontal ones so that they don't take up as much room, I'd be happy to do so. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"with Mark Williams winning the World Snooker Championship, Joshua Filler winning the WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Sourav Kothari winning the World Billiards Championship and Dick Jaspers winning the UMB World Three-cushion Championship." - try to reduce the amount of uses of the word "winning" in the same sentence
"with Han Yu winning the WPA Women's World Nine-ball Championship, Emma Bonney winning the World Billiards Championship and Ng On-yee winning the World Women's Snooker Championship." - same issue as above
"The cue sport pool encapsulates several disciplines, such as straight pool, eight-ball and nine-ball." - think this sentence requries a reliable source to verify it
It looks like TRM has essentially done the source review, so there will probably be little left to say here.
The biggest thing I found is that it's sometimes "worldsnooker.com" and sometimes "World Snooker" for what are from seemingly the same website. I don't really have a preference for which one should be used as long as it's consistent.
* In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included in both tables. This quote by PresN might apply to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
The tournament is probably the better field. Essentially, imagine you saw the field "Niels Feijen defeated Shane Van Boening, 8–4": the column header tells us it is the "Result", but we want to know what it is the result of. That is the job of the row header. Using "March 2–4" as the header would be pretty meaningless. For the coding to work best, it should go on a line of its own in the code, so something like:
|-
| {{dts|March 2}}–4
! scope="row" | [[2018 World Pool Masters|World Pool Masters]]
| Gibraltar || [[Niels Feijen]] defeated [[Shane Van Boening]], 8–4
This is fine, and meets the requirements. You could consider replacing class="sortable wikitable" with class="sortable wikitable plainrowheaders" for a subtler look, but either way it now meets the FL criteria. Harriastalk07:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "Location" column in each table also needs to be marked as the column header.
No scores for the Union Mondiale de Billard competitions?
I've added these. One is a bit of a misnomer, as they drew 40-40, but won through other means, I've done my best with this. (I'm not a billiards expert). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)18:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Australian Women's Open listed as "New South Wales", rather than a specific city? Did it take place in a variety of locations?
What is sourcing the location and dates of the Scottish Open? I haven't checked too many more, but if these two are missing sources for some of the information provided, I assume there will be more; it would be worth checking them invididually.
That's it from me on a first pass; I haven't looked at the lead at all, only the table. I will probably claim WikiCup points for this review. Harriastalk07:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski: I'm off on holiday in a couple of days: I'm not aiming to rush you, but there's only a couple of outstanding comments above, and then I can wrap this up before I go away. Harriastalk15:55, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it serves as an attractive and informative compilation about the episodes in the American reality singing competition series The Masked Singer. Three seasons have aired thus far on network television (Fox) and I believe it contains valuable and accurate information that is useful to readers. While the series is currently airing (the finale is on May 27, 2020), edits will be made at least weekly until then to add the ratings for each episode. However, I believe the rest of the article is stable (e.g., the ratings section is complete (at this point) in my opinion). This is my first nomination of any kind for good article/featured list/featured article, etc., so I'm hoping this will be an insightful experience. Heartfox (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At just four sentences, the lead is far far too short. I would expect it to be getting on for three times as long as it is at present. It also has no sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: another editor has removed the access dates from refs 13, 14, 24, and 36 because they "are not required for linked documents that do not change." Not sure how to proceed. Heartfox (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITEWEB says "the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)" - I looked at ref 13 and it has no visible publication date, therefore the accessdate is required. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed access dates, except for the two links that will change. Please tell me if I should revert and that access dates should be kept for all even if they aren't necessarily necessary. Zap2it links work for me. Heartfox (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When I click on ref 14, I get a blank white screen with a message that says "This site can’t be reached. tvlistings.zap2it.com’s server IP address could not be found".....?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having said that, I clicked on the toolbox link above and all the links shows as white, so heaven knows what is going at my end....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that bar chart for viewership really beneficial? Can't say I remember seeing anything like that in similar episode list pages.
I added the bar chart as I saw that some other featured lists of episodes (Game of Thrones, The Office, Seinfeld, etc.) have them, but I've removed it now as it doesn't really serve a purpose at this point. In my opinion, it's useful for readers to see the changes in viewership over the series' history, but given that there hasn't been much change with The Masked Singer, I agree with you that it's not beneficial at this time.
Don't italicize "Costume Designers Guild", "Academy of Television Arts & Sciences", or "Vulture"
Not sure how trustworthy "Zap2It" or "Showbuzz Daily" are, but the former also shouldn't have italics regardless
Zap2it is run by the company Nexstar Media Group, so I think it's pretty reliable for episode guides. However, I'm not sure it's necessary given that the episodes cite themselves with the titles and air dates? Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Showbuzz Daily is what is being used all over wiki (and in some media) now for TV ratings since TV by the Numbers shut down. It's run by two former network executives. The references are replaced when Nielsen releases DVR ratings with slightly updated viewership, so that's why there's only one of them in this article right now. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For citation 11 ("Watch The Masked Singer: Season 3, Episode 8 'Old Friends, New Clues: Group C Championships' Online"), I would add an accessdate and/or when the episode aired
The column headings with the space before the reference contravenes MOS, so this can't pass really. And yes, this impacts dozens if not hundreds of FLs, but we need to push back on inadequate coding of templates. I've added a request to fix the relevant template here but I don't see this being solved in short order. Happy to be proved wrong though! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I've moved those reference footnotes to a "sources" section... hopefully that's the right format I'm not sure. Is there anything else you think needs fixing/improvement? I just updated the lead a minute ago as the third season has now concluded. Heartfox (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(WikiCup entry)
"the South Korean namesake program." instead of this, I would actually name the South Korean show because the name is markedly different.
Changed to King of Mask Singer.
It's not 100% clear the elaborate costumes are designed to keep the celebrities from being identified physically.
Added "anonymously" for clarity.
Image caption says "The Masked Singer has aired 42 episodes since 2019, including 2 specials and 1 Super Bowl lead-out program." but I count 40 regular episodes, 2 specials and 4 "other" specials in the tables.
Changed to "40 regular episodes and 2 specials since 2019". Not sure if that's the best wording, though.
"while Fox Alternative Entertainment has done so since the second" awkward wording.
Removed sentence.
I'm confused by the exec producer "since" thing, are we saying the third series has four exec producers?
Yes, the third season has four executive producers. Added "also" for clarity.
"both TV seasons" what are these "TV seasons"? and do you mean "television"?
Wikilinked TV season. Per MOS:ACRO, I believe "TV" is okay for use in this article in the ways it is.
The row scope should really be the episode titles, not the overall number in the series.
While I appreciate that it might make more sense, I have no control over the situation. I can put in an edit request if you like (nothing seems to have come of the one you added, and you seem to be an editor of higher stature than me), but I hope this isn't a dealbreaker. Based on the table, it seems the current consensus is for the scope to be for the episode numbers. There is a scope present, so I hope it's okay to leave it the way it is for the time being.
I don't understand "rating/share" values, what does 3.0/12 mean?
I have determined, after considering wikilinking and adding a footnote (both of which render as blue, causing access concerns), that a brief glossary is best in this situation. I have also added a reference for the defintions.
" the 2018–19 TV season as" same, as above, and this is only the United States television season.
@Guerillero: Thanks for your comments. I've changed the alt text to hopefully be more descriptive. Is it okay to leave the image as "frameless", though? I don't know what I would be explaining with a caption. Title cards of TV series in infoboxes don't use captions. Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got nothing, consistent dates, authors, publishers and publisher links. Everything is reliable, easy pass for source review – good work here. Aza24 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The structure and style are both especially well-done and the List is nicely laid-out. A little thing perhaps but I really like the color-coding of the table headers (I guess that would go under Criteria 5a?) - visually appealing and clearly delineates the different seasons. Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for Featured list status because I am looking for feedback from other editors - what do folks think about the two different main sections?
I nominated this List for possible FLC status this past fall (2019). The nomination was closed in January 2020 as 'Not promoted' with 2 Supports and 2 Opposes. The List passed all other objections and was brought "up to code" but the main sticking point for the 2 Opposes is that the List's 2 main sections are in different styles - the first being a sortable Table, the second being a text-List. This general format of the two sections is how I found the List when I first started working on it in 2010 - myself and the other editors subsequently retained the general style of two sections. The major section about cyclists who died during a race was eventually completely converted into a sortable Table. The cyclists who died during training section seems fundamentally different to me, these were almost exclusively people who died as individuals, not racing under a team banner, and with the exception of perhaps two instances these other cyclists were killed in training accidents - the text-list format seemed to fit their situation and so that format wasn't changed. I do have to say right off that I do not want to split the two sections into different articles - the world of cycling does not seem to make that distinction, all cyclists who have died during competitions or during training seem to be generally memorialized together. Thanks in advance for any and all comments - Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the different styles - only if any friends or relatives of the cyclists who died during training said they were not being respected as much would I think it should be changed.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chidgk1Thank you for your thoughts on this. So far as I know no one has objected to the two different subsections of the List as presenting more or presenting less respect, one over the other. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The list has a hatnote saying that it is incomplete, and it therefore fails criterion 3 that it is comprehensive. It also fails to provide any criteria for inclusion in the list out of the countless people who have died in cycle accidents. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about criteria...at one point I seem to remember that the list was for professional cyclists only, but that would have excluded collegiate cyclists and well-known amateur cyclists so they were kept/included. If the List was only of people notable enough for a Wikipedia article then that would delete many o the amateurs and most of the 1890-1930s professionals. I suppose the lead section could have something in it along the lines of "This list consists of the deaths of well-known or notable athletes/cyclists"...something like that. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete lists are a fact of life and shouldn't preclude a list being featured. It is a reasonable point to note that inclusion criteria are not noted, but perhaps it's simply that the individuals noted are notable enough for inclusion as standalone articles in Wikipedia. See any alumni lists for other examples of "incomplete" lists with Wikipedia notability as their inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles There were internal editing notes of <!--Comment: Please only add cyclists with referenced information--></ nowiki> or <nowiki><!--Comment: Please only add professional or notable amateur cyclists with referenced information--> which I changed to <!--Comment: Only add professional or notable/well-known amateur cyclists along with referenced information--> but perhaps that wasn't sufficient re:criteria to have a name in the List. so I've added some content here to the lead section, let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not see any satisfactory criteria for inclusion. It is not a general list of cycling-related deaths as all deaths are in connection with cycle races - where details are supplied, but in some cases they are not. It is not only a list of deaths in cycle accidents as it includes people who suffered heart attacks, and not only of cyclists as it includes a trainer hit by a motorcycle. It is not only deaths during races as it includes deaths in training. The one thing the people on the list seem to have in common is that their death was connected with cycle racing Maybe a more accurate title would be List of people who died as a result of incidents connected with cycle racing. How did you find the people on the list? Are they listed in a reference work? The Rambling Man suggests people notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but very few on this list are. Lists of alumni are based on a reliable source published by a university, with selection of people notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I do not see any equivalent criteria here. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with your early point, the inclusion criteria is not defined here, but as to your latter point, the lists of alumni I've reviewed most certainly are not from a university source. That is simply untrue I'm afraid. If you think "incomplete" lists should not be WP:FL then you should start an RFC to enshrine that in our guidelines. Right now, that's just not the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And just a point of information on your opening statement, that an "incomplete list" fails criterion 3, that's not actually true. Firstly it's only criterion 3a which is relevant here, which states clearly " It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Now I think you have a point on "defined scope" as I mentioned above, but the clear statement following that which you haven't included in your opposition is "providing at least all of the major items" which means to say that a list doesn't have to be exhaustive if (as the next caveat in the criterion says) it's not "practical". Bottom line here, it would be helpful to define the inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. As I see it, there are three issues. 1. The title article does not explain the content. 2. The criteria are not explained. 3. The nominator has also not explained how the article meets "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items". On the last point, I am not sure whether I am correct or a reviewer should assume that the nominator has covered all major items. Can you advise on this please The Rambling Man? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. So (1) the title always needs to be succinct and that relates pertinently to your point (2) so as long as we (a) define the inclusion criteria and (b) come up with a snappy title which complies with that, no problem. As for (3) that's a fair point and could/should result in a closer look at 3a if you really feel it's a problem. It's a question of upon whom the burden is I suppose. Once the criteria of this kind of open-ended list are suitably defined, it's primarily up to you to note omissions as there will never be a single source for a comprehensive list. It's a far cry from a list of special scientific interest sites list (for example) which is completely defined in one URL, or a list of historical events completely covered in a book. We have traditionally allowed {{dynamic list}} to exist as FL as long as the community consensus agrees that as much as possible has been done to include everything which meets the criteria. So, back to that, it's up to Shearonink to provide the inclusion criteria here, and then we can move on to the next discourse, relating to comprehensiveness, right? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the title makes sense, I think something like List of cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents would be all-encompassing enough for the cyclists who died during a race and the cyclists who died while training or otherwise. The reason some of the "heart-attack people" are included is because there is a somewhat odd history of cyclists having heart issues during a race or during training, some experts saying that this is because they are cyclists - doping? Maybe. Over-exertion of the heart? Perhaps. The known health/heart issues of these amazing athletes has certainly at least become part of cycling's background noise, in somewhat the same way that Chronic traumatic encephalopathy has become associated with professional American football. Also cyclists who died after a race because of debilitating injuries suffered during a race are included as well. The amount of time that elapsed between the injury and the death seems somewhat immaterial.
Deleted the entry of Tim Johnson/coach who was killed during a race by a freak accident with a motorcycle but was not a cyclist per se.
How did I find them? Actually, I mostly didn't, I think predominantly other people did and I would then fix the entries up. Because of cycling's sprawling nature - European, 1890s, American, Brazil, South America, amateur, Olympic, professional teams, track cycling, motorcycle-assisted racing, road racing, marathon cycling, etc., etc. + its (in my opinion) really poor record-keeping - it is simply not possible for these names to have been listed in some governing body like a University's website or alumni association. For instance, in the course of improving the List I removed many entries from cycling's early days, say the 1890s into the 1930s, because no records could be found that backed up almost any facts about them, including their death or manner of death.
So then I come to the somewhat-combined issues of the inclusion criteria coupled with FLC's criteria 3a:
(3a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
With the title being changed I think that in and of itself helps to define the parameters for inclusion a little more succinctly but I am open to hashing out whatever the inclusion criteria could be, I just need to think on it a little bit more and test out some text to see what fulfills the needs of the article and the needs of the criteria.
If I understand correctly, The Rambling Man is saying that nominators are not required to prove that all major items are covered because that would rule out many lists which should qualify for FL. I am happy to accept that and strike my oppose on the ground that it is the wording of the criteria which is at fault. It should be something like "providing at least all of the major items, although the nominator shall not be required to prove this if there are no reliable sources which are comprehensive". BTW I do not want to get involved with changing the criteria.
I'm not sure how you could absolutely prove it for such incomplete lists. But as long as the community consensus agrees that enough has been done to incorporate the major items, that should be enough. After all, it's the community's decision really. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One last thought...I'll confess, I am feeling a little blindsided here. None of these issues were brought up in the previous FLC. These are valid concerns it's just that each time I have submitted this List to FLC something completely new has come up. I'll do my best to work with interested editors/commentators and to hopefully improve the List to being a FL according to the FLC criteria. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One last point is that in some cases you only provide a location or even just a reference. I do not think this is adequate for FL. If details of the cause of death are not available, the cyclist should not be in the list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give maybe one example of this inadequacy that you're referring to? In your opinion, what details must/should/ought to be present to satisfy the FL criteria? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Jules Orieggia "Died during a stayers race at the Marseille velodrome". No cause of death given. 2. Josef Schwarzer "Düsseldorf track" Ditto. 3. Ernst Wolf [63]. No details at all.
The pacemakers are included because they were often cyclists as well plus the pacemaker & the cyclist were considered a team.
So far as I can tell, the names that are being commented upon as lacking detailed info on their deaths are as follows:
Jules Orieggia/1904, Josef Schwarzer/1907, Ernst Wolf/1907, Fritz Theile/1911, Hans Bachmann/1913, Hans Lange/1913, August Kraft/1913, Max Hansen/1913, Max Bauer1917, Louis Darragon/1918, Hans Schneider/1920, Emanuel Kudela/1920, Franz Krupkat/1927, Emil Richli/1934, Stefan Veger/1936, Karl Kaminski/1978, Emilio Ravasio/1986, Saúl Morales/2000 This entry has gotten more text + an additional reference. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have just found reliable info for Morales (aka Saúl Morales Corral) but for the 1904-1934 deaths I am not sure it is possible. Besides anything else (like the lack of a central cycling database or overarching cycling organization), I would think that the records of at least some of the 1904-ca1918 deaths (especially of German cyclists) would have been possibly destroyed by the 2 World Wars since (+ the division of Germany post WWII), and for the ca.1918-1930s deaths, well WWII happened plus Germany being divided. I don't know - that's all I got. If more detailed information exists for these men I have been unable to find it, and when some of the fabulous German editors with an interest in cycling have happened by they seem to also have been unable to find any more than what is in the article now. Many of the entries on the German cyclists especially the early ones from the 1890s until the 1930s - were found in the stacks/archives of (I think?) the German State Library and the facts are as the editor found them. It seems the negative that is being applied in the comments is because of the abundance of information for some of the individuals, so then the scarcity of information for others stands out but should all the names be equal in their scarcity? The deaths of the scarce-info bunch occurred, they occurred on a track, they occurred during a race. I am not sure that each parameter needs to be equal in its information. I think it is fair to point out that there are other FLs that do not treat their various entries' related parameters exactly the same, for instance List of films of the Dutch East Indies has parameters that are marked "Unknown", List of roller coaster rankings has N/A parameters, List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication has entries whose Notes sections are empty...
And Karl Kaminski, who died in 1978. Well, the List could state he died when he was hit by a truck during training but my source for that statement is the (translated) German Wikipedia article on Kaminski:
On October 7, 1978, he fell on the Alfred Rosch arena in Leipzig after a puncture and died the following day in the hospital. He was the last stayer to have been killed in an accident on a German cycle track.
but that information is not sourced at that article and I have been unable to find any published info that backs up the statement. So should individual entries be stripped out of the List because other cyclists have more information? I think that at one time Location of death and additional information was possibly called Notes but am not sure that changing the title of the section would be an improvement but am open to suggestions.
I am not sure of the rules but I think the nominator should have checked all references, or know that someone reliable has checked them. Some, such as Hans Bachmann with "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 12/1913, p. 7. Berlin, Verlag Rad-Welt." do not look as if you could have checked them. I suggest that you compare any references you cannot check with the German list, add a note which refs you are relying on the German article for, and delete any names which are not satisfactorily referenced in the German list. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed good faith on the part of the editor who provided the Sport-Album der Rad-Welt references from their library archives, the same way I would assume a book reference is valid that has been provided but that I do not have physical access to. Of course I could not check them, the sources reside in a different country, are written in a different language, and are in the stacks or archives of a library so are not available for lending. Also, I am not aware of a guideline, policy, part of the WP-MOS etc that states we cannot accept reliable references that are written in a language other than English.
Regarding your suggestion that we check the Eng WP's List against the German WP List, the same editor who worked with me on improving the List ca. 2013 and who provided all the Sport-Album referencing here also has done much of the editing on the German WP's List. She has not edited here since 2014 but I will attempt tp get in touch and see if she has any additional input. Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. When you said that most of the entries had been added by other editors I got the impression that they were people you do not know. If it is an editor you have worked with, that is of course different. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok...when I said entries I was referring to the cyclists' names themselves. Take a look at the List when I started editing it plus often when names have been added by drive-by editors, the references have been missing or haven't been the best. It's been a long, looooong slog to get this List to its present state, to getting at least one reliable reference concerning the death of every. single. cyclist. on the List. My German Wikipedia-friend was instrumental in fleshing out the early cyclists' entries, meaning the referenced information that verifies their existence, their cycling status, and their deaths insofar as any of that is possible. I did delete names/entries from the List that no references were found for. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
"part of cycling's historic record and memorializing culture" The ref appears to be for pacemakers, not for this statement.
The ref is for what pacemakers are. The statement you mention goes to the core of the List - the matter of cyclists' deaths is simply part of the culture of the sport. The massive funerals, the competitions named for the deceased, the roadside memorials/pilgrimage site...all speak to the culture. That's it. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"After the death of Andrey Kivilev in a crash during the 2003 Paris-Nice race the Union Cycliste Internationale instituted a mandatory helmet rule." This is unreferenced.
I don't understand why this has been brought up a second time. This statement does not have to be referenced in the lead section, it is referenced within the List, see Ref #191/Velo News. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Collided with his pacer" I think it is better to stick to the spelling pacemaker.
"Died of a fatal skull fracture suffered during the Berlin Six-Day race held in March" Why "in March" when it is in the date column?
Because that year - unlike the usual way of these races - there were two SIx-Day Races held in Berlin. It came up during some talkpage discussions so it is important to make sure the reader understands which race is being referenced. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Finished race but then died on June 29, 1951" Suggest "Finished race but died the next day."
"She died as a result of a single-bike crash when she hit a tree during the 2000 BMC Tour event in Arlington/Boston." I would delete "as a result of a single-bike crash".
Why have sub-sections for periods (such as 1990 to 2000) in the training when you do not in the races?
Because I wanted to. Because that's the way I edited it when I was converting the Plainlist to a Table-format. Is there a criteria reason for not having the separate sections? Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I think about it, perhaps the "During a race" section should be converted to decade-tables. Having one huge table for all of the racing cyclists/pacemakers' deaths during races in cycling's history might not be the best way to handle that mountain of information... Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about the During a race/training sections for quite a while. Even before I asked The Rambling Man for feedback in fall 2019/this past spring, ever since the first FLC. I personally liked the 2 different styles, I thought they were appropriate, it never occurred to me that they would or could be an issue but... I took into account what editors other than myself had said about the 2 sections being Plainlist/Table in this FLC and in the previous FLC + information about the cyclists' being as accessible to readers as possible so I (finally - yes I *know*) converted the decades/Plainlist into the Table-format. So. You are saying that both sections must be identical in their appearance/construction. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes 15 and 16 should be merged - although I do not know how to do that in the #tag:ref format.
It is not proven to be connected to cycling just the same way that heart attacks are not proven to be connected to cycling but this was a man who competed at a world-class level and yet less than a year later he was dead of TB. I am loath to remove his name. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine apart from the different formats of the two tables. I think they should be the same but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since various different possible titles have been mentioned above, I thought it would be useful to gather them all up in one place. In a list no less!
1:List of cyclists with a cycling-related death
Might be the most accurate but having two gerunds in a row "cycling racing'...might yes be unwieldy also perhaps hard to quickly?easily understand... Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dudley Miles It is linked in the first paragraph: As follows:
Pacemakers were and are motorcyclists utilized in motor-paced racing, riding motorcycles in front of their teammates to provide an additional boost of speed to those cyclists via the resulting slipstreams.
Pacemakers were and are [[Motor-paced racing#Pacing by motorcycle|motorcyclists]] utilized in [[Motor-paced racing|motor-paced racing]], riding motorcycles in front of their teammates to provide an additional boost of speed to those cyclists via the resulting [[Slipstream|slipstreams]].
That is in the second paragraph. I think pacemakers should be linked to Motor-paced racing on the first mention in the first paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 - I was advised that it made sense for the term to be defined in the lead section. In my memory the List has never made a distinction between the historic early racing pacemakers and their stayers (their cyclists), but for our readers who are unfamiliar with the different terms and keeping in mind inclusion criteria it would seem to make sense to define who/what they are and to include them in the title. There were quite a few who were killed on those early racing tracks. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To editors Dudley Miles, BD2412, The Rambling Man, PresN and Chidgk1: I've been thinking a lot about what the title of this List should be, what reads better on the page, what is as simple as possible but covers the List's subject and its inclusion criteria (including heart conditions/heart attacks, deaths while training, deaths occurring after - sometimes long after - an accident but because of the accident, etc) and this last one is what I came up with. It has 18 syllables to the last/previous proposal's 21: List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents and in my opinion flows better. Unless there are objections I will move the List to the new title within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See proposed title at the beginning of this subsection. My impression was that you had agreed to it by saying "I am fine with that...". Shearonink (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are no separate entries for spectators in the List. Spectators' deaths are mentioned once in the List and that is in the Notes which explains the at least 47 deaths in cycling's early days did not include any people who were at an event to watch the racing (for instance, the 9 fans/bystanders who died in the terrible accident at the Friedenau track in 1909). Shearonink (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It is my fault for not reading your proposal carefully enough and there is no point pursuing the name change further. I will do a full review in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say the title was changed to List of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents or something similar - that starts to take care of the inclusion criteria issues but not all. I was looking at other cycling FLs for guidance and came across List of Tour de France general classification winners. I was told at some point that FLs had been moving away from stating "This is a list of [the subject title]" or "List of [whatever] is [etc]" so in 2012 I changed the lead sentence from its then-version "List of" form:
List of professional cyclists who died during a race documents the deaths of professional cyclists while participating in their sport, starting with the first verified deaths in the 1890s
to another version which has since morphed into the present statement. If the lead were changed to something along the lines of the following (plus moving the List to the associated/changed title) would that be enough to satisfy concerns regarding the inclusion criteria:
This is a list of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents including racetrack accidents, health-related incidents, and incidents that happened during training. The first documented deaths of cyclists during competition or training date to the 1890s and early 1900s when the then recently-invented safety or two-wheel bicycle made cycling more popular to the masses,[1] but by 1929 at least 47 professional riders and pacemakers[Note 1] had died at velodromes in track cycling.[3][Note 2] A number of professionals and competitive amateurs have been killed in accidents with motorized vehicles while training on public roads in the past few decades and after the death of Andrey Kivilev in a crash during the 2003 Paris-Nice race the Union Cycliste Internationale instituted a mandatory helmet rule.
^"Pacemakers" in this sense were motorcyclists who rode motorcycles as a team mate in front of and for specific professional cyclists. These motorized vehicles provided an additional boost of speed to the cyclists behind them via their slipstreams.[2]
^The total includes the professional pacemakers (14) and riders (33) but does not include injuries/deaths of bystanders. On page 101 Mangan recounts some details of the infamous 1909 Friedenau (Berlin) track accident with nine spectators being killed and 52 others injured.[4]
There is an informal ban on starting an article "This is a list. I suggest making the first paragraph a brief history of cycle racing, including an explanation of pacememakers in the main text, and when and why they ceased to be used. You can then go into deaths in the succeeding paragraphs. I would not use the Forbes report on most dangerous sport. It is not a reliable source, it does not report deaths and it does not report proportional figures. If people spend 100 times as long cycling as playing football then a comparison of raw numbers is meaningless. Your refs 7 and 8 are ambiguous whether they are talking about professional cycling and vague about comparing numbers participating in different sports. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the two styles of lists. I do find odd the missing time period 1929-1993, and then the odd splits of 1994-2000 followed by a partial decade (2010-2018) and then 2020-present, omitting the single year 2019. The Template:Expand list leaves such a pathetically small notation, and placed at the top of the page (prior to the lede and table of contents) makes it so inconspicuous as to be useless to the lists themselves. I would suggest you use more decade-friendly section headings and use Template:Dynamic list at the top of each section (alerting the reader that there may well be missing entries). Maybe try these brackets: 1900-1989, 1990-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-present... or 1900-1990, 1991-2010, 2011-present (changing later to 2011-2020, 2021-present). Normal Op (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Normal Op Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
*As I mentioned when this was nominated before, I can't see any compelling reason for the two lists not to be in the same format. To my eyes it looks messy, and means that the data is inconsistent. For example, many of the entries in the second section list a country after the date. I presume this is their nationality rather than the country where they died (as some of them died in different countries), although it's not specified. But why does one listing have the lengthy and detailed "Aberaman, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Wales, United Kingdom" rather than simply a country name? And why do some not have this info at all when it is clearly known/available? Putting the data into actual columns would ensure that is consistent for all entries..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)"Looks messy and that means the data is inconsistent". Does that mean if both sections were in the same style - either both plainlist or both sortable table/s - that you would support this FLC? Does it pass in the majority of other aspects? Shearonink (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The formats of the two lists should be the same. Also, it is not correct to head the tables "during a race" and "during training". Some died later after accidents or becoming ill during a race or training. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IF the two main sections were brought into stylistic agreement with each other, either all Plainlist or all Table, would any of the above objectors say that their inclination would be to pass the List to FL status? In other words, other than the 2 different styles, does the List fulfill all of the FL criteria. I am thinking about things and I do not want to put in the work on whichever section only to find out that there is no chance of the List possibly making it to FL.
And are there any previous MOS etc discussions somewhere on-Wiki that state all sections of a List must be in stylistic agreement with each other.
"The athletes delineated here were professional cyclists and pacemakers or well-known competitive amateurs whose deaths are part of cycling's historic record and memorializing culture." - I don't think any of this adds anything and it could be removed - it is expressed better by the last paragraph of the lead.
Previous Comments indicated the List needed specific Inclusion Criteria and I thought that Inclusion Criteria should probably be clearly-stated in the first paragraph. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The sport exists in the modern era" - the sport is cycling surely? Do you mean a specific form of cycling i.e. velodrome-based?
The sport I was referring to is paced racing, the previous text had implied that motor paced racing died out earlier in the 20th Century and that is not so. I've now adjusted that sentence. Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the Union Cycliste Internationale instituted a mandatory helmet rule." - source?
Ref #190 - Velo News
"The Union Cycliste Internationale on Friday confirmed that it will now make helmet use compulsory for professional cyclists following the death last month of Kazakh rider Andrei Kivilev." Shearonink (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the lists (will not get through all these in one go)
The notes are a mish-mash of complete sentences and what I would call bullet points e.g. "Known as "Bert Harris" or "Invincible Harris", he was the fastest short-distance rider in England, the first Professional Cycling Champion of England and was one of the most well-known athletes of his day." is a complete and lengthy sentence, but "Fatal accident at Charles River Track in Cambridge, Massachusetts" is not. Better to decide whether they are going to be complete sentences or not and write them all accordingly.
ChrisTheDude I've been working my way through the Notes/Information sections. Cutting down on the wordiness, making progress. Will take me a while to get through the Table. I am trying to make the first sentence in that "box" to be somewhat terse about the manner of death and then go into more detail about the cyclist or their honors in subsequent statements. Shearonink (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to write Kerff's full name at the start of the notes, you don't do this elsewhere.
"achieving world's records for 10 and 15 Miles" - no reason for capital M on miles
Ok. But I'd like to see the policy/guideline that applies in this case. If it's an event like "The 10 Mile Race" does the no capital letters rule still apply... Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1903 World Record-holder in Track Racing and Cycling" - apart from the T on The, none of these capital letters are needed
Really? It was his title like saying "Super Bowl Champion" or "Heavyweight Champion of the World", like it just doesn't seem right to say "Heavyweight champion of the world"... Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The night before he died Michael complained of feeling sick and nauseous, telling the ship's doctor" - what ship? No ship has been mentioned at this point.
"See de:Emil Meinhold (Emil Meinhold article in German Wikipedia)" - not appropriate
Ok. The problem is that some sources erroneously indicate that Meinhold died in 1913 in Richard Scheuermann's accident but that is not so. I wanted to head off any possible issues about that mistake in history. I'll accept the linkage is not appropriate - it's been dropped - but would appreciate you telling me exactly why. Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason for not listing the place of death of Hans Schneider?
Yes. Because that info, that Schneider died on a certain day, is all the info we have. It's a miracle that the wonderful editor who had access to records in a library archive was even able to find that much. I do not have access to the source, I cannot read German even if I did. I get that it looks funny but there's nothing to be done about it. Shearonink (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Crashed into a tunnel wall on a "descent of the Sustenpas near Bern"" - can't see any real reason for the quote marks here
That was because I was quoting but ok - Done.
"died at the "Parc des Princes" track" - or here
Done
a Berlin "1000 laps"race - or here, also there's a missing space before race
Done. I was trying to delineate that there is a type of race called a "1000 laps" race.
"Berlin Six Days (March)." - what is that? A race? It isn't clear
Point taken. See below.
"Berlin Six Day." - ah I see, you have wikilinked the term the second time it's used. Wikilink it the first time instead.
Done. Actually I decided to link both mentions, though that might seem technically against MOS, because the Notes section is far-removed from the text where the March race is mentioned. I think there is an exception for double-Wikilinking if a link is in the infobox and also in the text I am taking this situation as much the same.
"Crashed in the 4th stage" => "Crashed in the fourth stage"
Done
"Tour of Portugal. Polo died of dehydration during the 1958 Tour of Portugal." - why not just "Polo died of dehydration during the 1958 Tour of Portugal." to avoid the repetition? Same on the next row.
"colliding with a dog who had run" => "colliding with a dog which had run"
Done
"Trofeo Luis Puig[176] Died after colliding with a car during race." - missing full stop after Puig
Done
"Had a major crash one km" => "Had a major crash 1 km"
Done
"Reinhart was an eleven time national champion" => "Reinhart was an eleven-time national champion"
Done
Brett Malin row - the refs should be right after the last word, not on a separate row
Done
"The Race Across America always goes from the west coast to the east coast of the United States. In 2005 the Race went from San Diego to Atlantic City, N.J." - don't see why any of this is needed, it isn't in any way relevant to Breedlove's death.
I disagree. This section is labeled as "Location of death and additional information". I think it is interesting for readers to know that there are bicycle races that run from the west coast of the US to the east coast of the US...an ultramarathon. It is true that this snippet is not specifically about Breedlove's manner of dying but perhaps the fact that he had pedaled over 1000 miles has a little something to do with being on this list...
"hit the wing mirror of a SUV" => "hit the wing mirror of an SUV"
Done A SUV isn't technically incorrect but An SUV sounds better. A sport utility vehicle would be fine so that is what I was going on.
"Goolaerts suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest on the 3rd cobbled sector" => "Goolaerts suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest on the third cobbled sector"
Done
Giovanni Iannelli row - there is a stray space before the reference.
"Archie McEachern, May 13, 1902. Nationality: Canada, Track cyclist. Coliseum Cycling Track, Atlantic City, New Jersey" - firstly, that comma after Canada should be a full stop (either that or track should have a lower case t). Also, by simply writing the sentence fragment "Coliseum Cycling Track, Atlantic City, New Jersey", there'a actually nothing to make it explicit that this was his place of death. This is a prime example of something that would be much clearer if this section was put into a table.
I don't disagree but I might as well clean up what is in the Plain List section before I possibly decide to either convert the Table or the Plain List into the other style. I will keep your comments in mind but I am leaving most of Archie alone for the moment.
"Track cyclist, Parc des Princes track" - comma after the type of cyclist he was, whereas in the previous example it was a full stop.
Done
"also beat Henry Elkes by 300 metres in a 50-mile race" - who was Henry Elkes and why is it significant that Taylor beat him? Also, I just noticed that the wikilink for Taylor is an interwiki to the German Wikipedia - this should be made clearer (there's a template for this)
Done I removed some piping that was in there, made the "de" clearer.
See Elke's entry in the Table. Major Taylor called Elkes the best middle-distance rider he'd ever seen.
"Nationality: United States. as a result of a training accident" - given that there's a full stop after States then "as" should have a capital A.
Done
"Nationality:Switzerland" - missing space after the colon
Done
"1924 and 1925 Tour de France Winner, Nationality: Italy" - comma should be a full stop
Done
"Nationality: unknown. track cyclist" - given the full stop, track needs a capital T
Thanks for your in-depth review/assessment of this List, muchly appreciated. I am concentrating on getting the Table section fixed-up for now. Will get at the second section sometime this weekend. Am still thinking about the different styles in the 2 sections and if all Plain-list or all Table would be better. Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
during a stayers race at the Marseille velodrome → is it Marseille Vélodrome?
It is rendered as velodrome of Marseille in the one source and not mentioned in the other so?...I don't know. I don't think so, I can only go by what the sources say. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
damage from the fall, as afterwards he → as afterwards,
was also winner of the 1901 New York Madison → was also the winner of
Not done. I don't think "the" is needed here. I suppose the general style is a summary style, dispensing with articles such as "a" & "the" - it does not seem to me to be incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In his last year of competition he placed → competition, he placed
DoneCAPTAIN MEDUSA When I did the ! row changes that automatically changed the background color of the Name column/cells, so the darker iteration is the default. So now more flat-looking table. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at some other similar Featured Lists (including List of HIV-positive people and List of people with brain tumors). Having a single cell be a different color seems to be a style-decision for "List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication" as opposed to an FL criteria/guideline/policy but I'll play around with switching out the background color on the name cell/column to see if the change seems like a good fit - I was thinking the photos editors have been able to find of the various cyclists for this FLC would have been enough to add visual interest? but maybe not.
CAPTAIN MEDUSA The one dark column in the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication you mentioned is apparently the default. I have been unable to figure out how to make a single column have a single background color all the way down throughout the Table. Any ideas or useful Help pages etc so I could figure out how to make an entire column have one bg color? If you can show me an example of the code that is the most useful way for me to learn - sometimes the Help pages aren't the most helpful for non-coders like myself. If you know how to do it please do not change the code in the List yourself, I'm like a toddler who says "Me do!" - that's the best way for me to learn (no matter how painful it might be for the teacher). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Thanks for the dummy edit, but, Ok, yes I knew that I could change all 119 Name cells individually in the During a Race Table, but you are telling me there is NO way to change a Column's background color en masse... I have to go through the entire Table and change the background color of each individual "Name" cell? Shearonink (talk)
And just making sure I understand what you're stating here - You are saying that the Photo cells & Column and the Name Cells & Column must be switched. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done The Name column & the Image column have been switched on the During Table. All the Images & Names have also been adjusted accordingly. I think this massive change satisfies your concerns about "flatness". Am taking a break, will get to the Training tables sometime later this week. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Ok, yes I could but I am thinking that I am not sure I want to change the background color of that column (actually individual cells). This seems to be an esthetic decision/design choice/personal preference that isn't part of the FL criteria. I'll have to think about it but feel free to convince me. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the scope/code issue, where you wrote
The table has |scope="row". Activate the scope by adding !scope="row"
I don't understand what is wrong with the way it is now, need an explanation/links to the appropriate MOS-Table URLs so I can fix it and know for next time. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are not my strong suit around here. Please, I need you to explain what is wrong with the present coding. I need to understand why I need to change it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Could I get some guidance on the table has |scope="row". Activate the scope by adding !scope="row" issue? As I have said above I do not understand what you are asking here and I do not understand the why either. I need to know both please. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: it means that the row should start with "!scope=row", not "|scope=row". As it stands, a screen reader will not be able to pick up the scopes. Should be able to quickly do it with a search-and-replace I would have thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Thanks for the explanation - the "why" is a big help. So it means that every line with "|scope=row" needs to instead have "!scope=row", correct? (and yeah, TG for Search & Replace). Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welford Road Cemetery's website has gone dark, I doubt that it was unreliable but it is in addition to other refs so it's been removed. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
stuyfssportverhalen.wordpress.com and stuyfssportverhalen.com (clearly says its a blog site)
Re:cyclehistory.wordpress.com - is not clearly unreliable but I'll remove it since it is just an additional ref for the differing dates of Jimmy Michael's debilitating accident. Mr Cripps' work seems scrupulous to me but ok. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other comments.
In references there are sites like www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. → It should just be NYT in italics.
What is this rule/guideline for an italicized "NYT". If the publisher/website is an entity like The New York Times and they have a Wikipedia article isn't that supposed to be Wikilinked? Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some references are missing site names.
Site names? Do you mean the website as in "website="? I have to take a break, your comment isn't making complete sense to me at the moment, will take another look sometime within the next few days. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean in this instance. (Policies/guidelines/examples are always a help to me in cases like this.) Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much shouting in ref name.
I think you are mainly referring to the Raul Motos ref - Ref #145 - I was preserving the original appearance of the article's title + concern about diacritics but those seem to disappear in the caps anyway so I've converted the title to This Appearance. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In website name remove .com .de etc and correctly format them
Done I think it's done...in a late night of editing I converted all of the websites to .com etc - made more work for myself. I admit this rule of giving the name of the website and not actual URL seems kind of odd to me...the website is the .com, the .de, etc. I puzzled over how to adjust the dw.com website and finally gave up - not supposed to put publisher and website if the same but dw.com is not the same as the broadcaster and...anyway, decided to leave it as Deutsche Wells. All now fixed. I think. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OH. You're not saying it should be literally NYT in italics but that all mentions of The New York Times as the website=/publisher= etcneeds to be rendered as [[The New York Times]]. So for New York Times refs, no publisher, just a Wikilink for the website. Ok. DoneShearonink (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and checked all the website='s, etc. - think I caught all the errant .com's, the .de's, the nl's, etc. - they should be all gone at this point. I hope. Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Goffin crashes and, after spending six days in a coma, dies from his injuries" - randomly written in the present tense when everything else is in the past tense
Note 9 - "See "Opgevouwen op zijn fietsje de dood tegemoet" (Folded to death on his bike)." - what is this? A book? A newspaper article? Something else entirely?
It is a reference in the List, Reference # 69. I thought it was important to mention that the date of the accident/death varies in different sources. Perhaps it could be rendered more elegantly, but I did the best I could with what I was able to find. Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted that Note. That reference exists further on and is the only one I could find that had a different date. If readers read that source then they'll see there's a discrepancy but I doubt anyone cares but me. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note 14 is missing a space in "Motorcyclist(Volume 71)" and also in "of a 'A Thousand Laps'(150 km)"
I don't think note 25 is needed personally. If it is kept then "As the template at the beginning of the List says "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries."" definitely needs to go, reiterating what the template says is not appropriate at all.
The only reason I put this Note in is because editors are bringing it up from time to time and the gap has come up in the FLCs, you know...along the lines of "Why is there a gap?!? I'd like to forestall any future drive-by editing or Commenting that Stuff Must Be Missing Because of The Gap. Have adjusted it a bit - see what you think. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note 27 has two full stops at the end, and "(See German Wikipedia article: Edouard Taylor)" is not appropriate, as what seems to be going on here is that you are using another Wikipedia article as a source, which is not permitted.
I am not using that German Wikipedia article as a source, I am pointing interested readers to it as a See Also - that isn't clear from the "See German Wikipedia" phrase? I couldn't figure out any other way to let English Wikipedia readers know that the German Wikipedia has an article on the man. I can delete that complete "See..." phrase if it is truly needful. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a shame to not let readers know that there is an article in another Wikipedia about the man but ok - deleted the link from the List. Also deleted any references to tuberculosis since the German Wikipedia article is the only mention online that I could find about that specific illness. So I guess it's not clear exactly how Edouard Taylor died, and he is mentioned in Andrew Ritchie's Early Bicycles and the Quest for Speed: A History, 1868-1903, in a list of cycling-accident deaths along with Elkes, Gornemann, Kaser, Dangla, et al. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 47 - ""Walter Rutt quote (undated cutting)". Journal, Fellowship of Cycling Old-Timers.. From Jimmy Michael" - what is this?
What is says it is. An undated cutting that is referenced in the Jimmy Michael article:
Walter Rutt, the world sprint champion in 1913, said Michael began drinking because of an "everlasting headache" which followed his fall at Berlin.."<ref>Journal, Fellowship of Cycling Old-Timers, undated cutting quoting Walter Rutt</ref> Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The full and correctly formatted reference needs to be in this article. Essentially at the moment you are saying "there's a reference for that but you need to go and look in another article for it", which isn't permitted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to this undated cutting that was republished in a past edition of the "Fellowship of Cycling Old Timers'" magazine so it's been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 206, 280 and 296 do not list what the work/publisher is
ChrisTheDude - Thanks for all your attention to the List. It has been such a massive undertaking and in the early days, especially, had attention from many different quarters - bits have obviously escaped me since I have become so familiar with the subjects & sources. Will continue on later this weekend. Hope it's ok that I adjusted your punctuation/code for this section to be a sub-header instead, it helps me keep my responses clear. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why California Digital Newspaper Collection/University of California Riverside listed twice in ref 19?
Because the website & the publisher seemed to me to be one and the same. The original newspaper was The San Francisco Call but that is not the exact source that is available online for verifiability. What to do... Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Babylon Wales is a blog that was published 2006-2014, written by Anthony Brockway a writer who has also been published in other venues/magazines - Planet Magazine/planetmagazine.org.uk, New Welsh Review/https://newwelshreview.com/, etc. This particular ref gives the details on the poster of Jimmy Michael that was drawn by Toulouse-Lautrec. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mangan ref 45 should have "pp. 130–131" not "p.130, 131"
It is true that www.cycling4fans.de was started in 2001 as a cycling fan site but has since developed into a cycling archives/history resource. Any possible submissions are vetted by the editorial staff. This particular column is about Willy Schmitter, a cyclist who died in 1905 and the cyclingfans article cites as its source the 1906 edition of the Sport-Album der Radwelt, 4th year. Information about early cyclists is very difficult to get at, the Sports-Album is often the only remaining source of information and so far as I can tell is probably only available in the stacks of research libraries in Germany. In my opinion it is reliable. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Boy THAT was hard to find...it's not printed on any copy I could find but I found a publisher cited elsewhere on the Internet Archive. Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Sport-Album der Rad-Welt citations are inconsistent, for example:
Ref 59 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 6/1907..."
Ref 63 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, vol. 7, 1908..."
Ref 69 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 8/1909..."
I would recommend capitalizing to "Vol" and using the format of ref 63, like: "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 7, 1908..." for all of them.
I don't know. That is a ref that was added by another editor who has access to the archives/stacks at a major library in Germany. I have an inquiry into them now - I'll let you know when I know. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using f. in a reference is a common German shorthand way of stating "and the following (pages)" but since I do not have Das Stahlrad in front of me (found out it means "The Steelbike") to see how many the following page/s are, that ref will be rendered without the f. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 89 should be pp. 66–67 (make sure its an em – dash)
Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport was a weekly cycling magazine publishedfrom 1921 to 1935. I have filled it out with whatever information I could find, I do not have direct access to these volumes. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 97 "See Rennbahn Oerlikon – 100 Jahre Faszination Radsport by Peter Schnyder, Page 150" you need a publisher and ISBN or something. You already have another ref for this entry so I wonder if this one is even necessary. (if you do remove it I would do so after going through this batch of comments so when I refer to a reference it is the same one, if that makes sense)
What is Ref 99 ""Kruger". Illustrated Cycling. July 24, 1931." can I get an author or access date or link or anything?
Well, again, the problem is that this is a reference in a different language published before ISBNs were established. I added the ref myself in 2012, but I think the information was quoted in another reference complete with attribution. Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport (or "Illustrated Cycling") was a German cycling magazine published from 1921 until 1935 and is used as a reference in a handful or articles about historic cycling in the English Wikipedia and extensively so in the German Wikipedia see this and this. There's even an article about it in the German Wikipedia, see de:Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport. One thing to be aware of is that the magazine's title is rendered in two different forms, as Illustrierter Radrennsport and as Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport. Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can ref 103 get an ISBN OCLC or something?
The book doesn't have an ISBN since it was published in 1950 and apparently never had a second or third printing - ISBNs only came into use after 1970. I filled out the reference as much as I could - hopefully that will be enogh.
Why does ref 108 say "1936 edition" and ref 109 simply says "1937"?
Why does ref 112 say "Melbourne, Victoria. December 10, 1938. p. 4 Edition: Edition1." isn't "Melbourne, Victoria. December 10, 1938. p. 4 Edition: 1." enough?
Done It did look somewhat odd but that is one of the citation forms put forth at the source and that is how it is rendered elsewhere. I take the preciseness of the Edition to mean to mean that there could be more than one edition of a paper put out in a day - the morning edition (Edition 1) and the evening edition (Edition 2). I've adjusted it now Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is the ISBN for ref 113 (Brisson, Jean-Pascal) correct? 979 is unusual, not even sure it's possible
Refs 94, 118, and 129 are all sourced from Mémoire du Cyclisme, a database of cycling news & history that has been around since 1997. It has an editorial staff and, though it does have fan forums, the information presented to the public in article-form is overseen and vetted by that editorial staff. It is cited by other references as a source - Cycling Ranking, Taylor & Francis books. The site itself is cited over 2000 times in different Wikipedia articles about cycling. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your diligent work and responses so far, I recognize this can be a tedious process, especially with this many references. Looking through the above everything seems to be addressed and I'm happy with the reliability explanations. The only suggestion I would make before going through the rest is that I've heard of a guideline for when the website and publisher are the same, or closely related you don't need both (e.g. having California Digital Newspaper Collection at University of California Riverside twice) usually I see this with people avoiding |website=New York Times |publisher=New York Times Company, but either way is fine, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Going through the rest now, 145 more... "eek" indeed :) Aza24 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete #162 when the review is done. Unfortunately it looks like the site has gone dark and also something went wrong with the Wayback Machine's archiving. What a pity. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The date was already in the ref. The author was "Agence France Presse, which is/was akin to Associated Press or United Press Syndicate, so I rendered the author as "Staff". Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
215 needs date (and maybe author – although this author name seems to be their initials so perhaps not)
Date is already there. I tried to get at who "JB" was, but that info is not searchable through velo-club.net's archives. I think I will leave it blank. sinceI cannot attach a name to the initials. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot! I meant to get through all of them in one swoop, got to ref 245 but I have to go... will be back in a little bit to finish up, you're so close! - Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it for me, to help with the process I'll go through more myself to try and link the remaining unlinked publishers. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24... Done. Should be all good to go. Please at least do a spot-check of my work to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thank you for all your efforts on this review. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shearonink: good work! I spot checked some like you asked and everything looked fine. Thanks for your cooperation on this list with a lot of sources! (btw don't forget to delete 162) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have 21 other county lists as FLs, hope this one, being up to date with additional information, can make it 22! Should be pretty straightforward but there may be other information that could be mentioned or revised. Reywas92Talk22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"except when the small area of Cliffdell was moved from Kittitas to Yakima County" - seems odd not to mention when this was
"Councils in other three charter counties" - word order seems wrong here
"Elections are nonpartisan in non-charter counties, but charter counties may choose to make some positions partisan, though all elections are by top-two primary." - ref?
"both the least populated and densely populated" - slightly clearer to say "both the least populated and least densely populated"
"political figures, but only five of which had lived in the region" => "political figures, only five of whom had lived in the region"
I would use either the labeled map or the static map
Why? The linked one only has space for abbreviations (and are not part of the image itself) so the full labels are also appropriate. Mobile and desktop users may prefer one or the other.
Every one of the links redirect to a page with the actual county name in it like this
The census does still use FIPS county codes, the census links are still appropriate.
Needs a better source for the county seats and establishment date.
Why? NACo is a reliable source, and general sources are allowed so only one is needed at the header, adequately covering all entries; it links to all counties.
Why is there a citation to HistoryLink for etymology when each one is cited to a book?
I removed the general link.
The paragraphs of the leade are short and choppy. Several can be merged.
Drive by comments I may have time to do a full review in the near future, but for now I do have to agree with the previous poster, that the FIPS codes are not very useful for the wikipedian reader, and I would suggest removing them. Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The FIPS code column could be re-named "US Census page", which is a useful thing to link to (and avoids people wanting to add extra things to the main table). Use the FIPS code in the link - let the US Census website looks after the redirect. Tompw (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should avoid using WP:EASTEREGG links. The FIPS code is fine as it is, since it does have niche uses (mostly for those using raw Census data for GIS or other kinds of data processing). It is also a useful unique identifier for each county in the country. SounderBruce23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article name sounds odd to me as I would take Washington without qualification to mean Washington DC, but I assume it is OK in AmerEng.
Yes, while it can get confusing to have two places with the name, DC does not have counties and disambiguation is not needed here
'See also' normally follows the main text.
Hmm the hatnote was in every county list since creation but yes it doesn't need to be there, no dab.
"Elections are nonpartisan in non-charter counties, but charter counties may choose to make some positions partisan," This implies that being nonpartisan is compulsory. Is it illegal for candidates to run for a party in non-charter counties?
Correct, in a non-partisan election parties do not appear on the ballot.
"though all elections are by top-two primary." How does this work when 3 to 5 commissioners are being elected?
They are divided into districts and they run for separate seats, but it's actually a bit more complicated than I'd want to describe in this list (in non-charter counties, the top-two primary is by district to ensure some geographic representation, but the general election is at-large; charter counties can do their own thing but I think all are fully by district). I should add Government_of_the_State_of_Washington#Local_government to the to-do list.
"Counties are not subdivided into minor civil divisions like townships; local government is only by incorporated cities and towns, and services in unincorporated areas are provided by the county." I do not understand this sentence. Does it mean that the county has no role in incorporated cities and towns?
What services is the county responsible for?
With both of these it's quite complicated and varies significantly by county and city. E.g. counties have sheriff departments that have jurisdiction everywhere but primarily serve unincorporated areas but also smaller cities that contract with them, while larger cities have their own police departments (see King County Sheriff's Office). My county, King, has a library system with branches everywhere except Seattle which has its own. There are county courts, but some cities also have a city court for minor infractions. Code and zoning laws are mostly only for unincorporated areas, as are the county parks and road services. Garbage services are for everywhere but Seattle. Then there's special purpose districts! Not as familiar with other counties but it's still inconsistent for the less-urbanized ones. I've revised that line to exclude that since I'm not sure how to accurately summarize it while being adequately informative but let me know your thoughts.
Updated. I intended this answer to apply to the prior comment too – yes, the county does have a role in cities and towns, though it's not the same between them and unincorporated areas. Reywas92Talk00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"King County, home to the state's largest city, Seattle, holds 29.58% of Washington's population (7,614,893 in 2019)" I was confused at first by this and took the figure as the population of King County. Maybe "Washington has a population of 7,614,893 (in 2019) and 29.58% live in King County, home to the state's largest city, Seattle." Also, in view of inevitable errors and changes in population, two decimal places (29.58%) is false precision.
Revised
In the infobox, you should specify that the figures in 'populations' and 'areas' are for the smallest and largest.
Done
The map shows the counties covering the whole state, including Indian reservations. Do the counties have juriscdiction over reservations? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in that reservation residents vote for their county officials and the county provides services. Tribes have their own governments and police agencies, so I've added that as local government, good catch of my oversight. Jurisdiction can get complicated though: [14]. Thanks for your comments!
See further comment above. There is one point you have not replied to. Also, the last paragraph of the lead seems too technical for the main text - perhaps move it to a note? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seven paras for a lead is too much per MOS:LEAD. Strikes me that this could be resolved by writing a brief summary, perhaps two paragraphs, and then create a prose "history" section based on the current lead.
Only two of these paragraphs contain historical information. I don't think slicing this with a header would be an improvement and leads for lists are different from those of articles. Perhaps the two paragraphs on government could be separated, but that would imply that it should be more comprehensive than just introductory information.
"in unorganized Oregon" what does "unorganized" mean in this context?
" to 54°40′ North latitude. " this is an Easter egg link for sure.
Hmm I just bypassed the 54-40 redirect; it's actually an important part of history and I don't want to just remove the link but not worth expanding on with respect to counties. Don't want to link 49th parallel north.
"Washington State Constitution " why not just call it what it is, i.e. "Constitution of Washington"?
Because that's literally how the WA legislature and Secretary of State call it. Both are correct, unless you want to go with "Constitution of the State of Washington"...
William Clark doesn't need to be disambiguated.
"Martin Luther King Jr. " we stopped putting commas in these Jr Sr names a while back.
Comments Could use some climate information. Maybe as a section. Another possibility would be to put selected climate information into the table, so it could be sorted by warmer/colder or wetter/dryer places. Bot-generated climate charts and summaries can be found at ceb:Skamania_County other ceb.wikipedia articles. For counties that are missing a full chart in the ceb.wikipedia, at least a summary may still be included which is readable enough on Google translate. Anther possibility would be to browse the location articles in each county until you find one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other county lists do not have climate tables or summaries, because they can vary wildly within the county themselves. In fact, the climate data at ceb.wikipedia should be removed for this reason. SounderBruce01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Full out climate charts for each county would be too much for the list. The ceb.wikipedia resources were not available the last time a list was proposed for FA. So this is new ground to tread here without precedent to follow. I am of the understanding that rainfall varies substantially between the eastern and western parts of the state; with a difference comparable to Oregon's, but more serious than most states. Some people may be looking for a quick way to sort counties by subregion and putting rainfall in a sortable table for the peak month or annual rainfall would allow that.
As for ceb.wikipedia bot related geographical articles, it is a problem because they are not individually curated. For example, they had the same island listed for three different counties in Wisconsin. Historically, the island has belonged to only one of these counties for well over 100 years. But because Google picks up Wikipedia--even a foreign one, Google was falsely reporting the county's ownership for ordinary searches. Yesterday I turned two of the articles into redirects for the correct one, and I'll see if Google improves or not.
If Wikipedia has a Google liaison it would be good to see if they could get the search engine to automatically remove all of their geographical articles outside of the Philippines.
The flip side is that even though it was bot generated, the climate information comes from NASA, and so it should still work just fine. It would be nice had ceb.wikipedia showed more restraint, but now that the monkey is out of the bag we might as well see if it can be any use. The county tables appear to be an average for the county and not the county seat, but don't take my word for it. I believe even counties without tables still have a paragraph of summary that should suffice. So we do not need to subjectively pick cities in a county.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Using climate data to provide a sortkey between regions is not an appropriate plan. None of this should be included in a general list of counties, and climate data for individual county articles needs to be discussed elsewhere. SounderBruce06:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SounderBruce that climate info is not appropriate for this list. The scope of this list is political divisions within a state with typical and most commonly compared attributes associated with sub-state political divisions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hwy43
Full disclosure: this is my first time reviewing a counties in the US list and I have not looked to compare with the 21 other county FLs and the comments associated with their nominations. Further, I have only skimmed the above comments so pardon any redundancy.
"There are/is..." is an awkward way to start a written sentence, and this list article's opening sentence starts with such. I suggest refactoring the opening sentence to read along the lines of "The U.S. state of Washington has 39 counties."
Changed.
The lead section is the lengthiest lead section I have witnessed in a featured list. Can it be split so that the lead summarizes the current state of counties in Washington and the balance placed into one or two sections? At minimum, History and Governance sections would house the majority of the lead content that is not about the current state of counties.
That wouldn't be accurate, it's those two two counties that extended there, not the whole Oregon Country.
Understood. Is there another creative way to reword to avoid a sea of blue then?
I see some counties in the lead section are wikilinked while others are not. Why the inconsistency? Should not all counties be wikilinked (i.e. first mentions of each unique county but not subsequent mentions in prose to avoid WP:OVERLINK)?
Links added
FIPS codes, mentioned in prose and included in the table, are really only meaningful to the US government, the US Census Bureau, and a small contingent of readers that know what they are. Such are trivial and non-encyclopedic to the average reader. Further, I thought external links were strongly discouraged yet each county's FIPS code is an external link. If these links to the QuickFacts tables are absolutely necessary, embed each as inline citations in support of each county's population count within the "Population (2019)" column. The inline citation for the column heading is wrong anyway as it takes us to the QuickFacts of the state as a whole and doesn't verify the population of each county. We should avoid making readers have to search for a county upon landing at a QuickFacts page for the state to learn more or verify.
This is built into the template that makes the tables and is actually required this way to produce the map and is consistent with all 50 county lists. Changing the template would affect all others. Content on Wikipedia need not be limited to what an "average reader" is already aware of.
I won't stand in the way on the account of that being how the template was built. I ask that a solution be investigated post-FLC on how to revise the template so that external links are not embedded (instead output as inline citations based on a FIPS parameter) while still producing the maps.
I don't see the need to mention the postal abbreviation for the state (or its FIPS code for same reasons above). If a reader wants to know the state's postal abbreviation, it can go to Washington (state).
Postal code removed
In the table, does "Area" mean total area (i.e. land + water) or land area only? Change the heading title to "Total area" or "Land area" accordingly. Based on what I learned in preparing my next comment, I believe the answer is land area.
Changed to land area
The inline citation associated with the "Area" column takes readers to NACo's landing page, again requiring them to search for a county individually to learn more or verify. The QuickFacts profile for each county, which is already linked (externally rather than within an inline citation as previously mentioned) presents area (i.e. land area) in addition to the 2019 population and so much more. Building from the suggestion three bullets above, I further suggest you duplicate the ref from the "Population (2019)" column within the "Area" (or "Land area") column for each county.
The point of a general ref and the FIPS link is to avoid duplicating refs as clutter.
The References section features 36 duplicate refs of the four listed works that arguably creates the same amount of clutter that 39 individual county QuickFacts refs, which while appearing duplicate would actually each be slightly different. As alternate means to workaround this:
Is there a census highlight table published by the US Census Bureau that presents the population counts and land areas of all states for comparison to each other so that a single ref can be shared between the "Population (2019)" and "Land area" columns?
Is there a state-published source that lists all counties with their respective seats that can replace ref [11] in the "County seat" column header?
Is there another state-published source that lists all counties with their respective years of establishment that can also replace ref [11] in the "Est." column header?
Unfortunately I could not find any official sources that provide all of this on the same page. The unofficial ones with this together would be Whereig or Ballotpedia. Washington also makes its own population estimates, separate and slightly different from the census. Not even the Washington State Association of Counties actually has a place that lists all the counties, and the MRSC's list only has population. HistoryLink.org has historical profiles for each county, but again not presented together.
In the "Formed from" column, should any or all of these be wikilinked, or is every county listed within already wikilinked under the first "County" column? Not sure if there is some defunct counties or counties straddling state lines within this column not mentioned in the first column.
All listed are existing WA counties, except Furguson which does not have an article to link.
Looking back at an FLC for List of municipalities in Ontario, we were advised that, for sortable tables, “anything that's linkable should be linked every time.” We were advised that, “Most, if not all recent FLs follow that paradigm.” Thus, wikilink every county in the column despite repetition, excluding Ferguson County.
Done
I trust the sum of all 2019 population counts equals the 2019 population count for the entire state. Is that correct? If so, add a final sortbottom row for the state to present its total 2019 population and land area. This would also provide an opportunity to salvage the QuickFacts inline citation for the state. If not correct, add two sortbottom rows that sum the population and land area within all counties in the first row and then present the state totals in the second row for comparison.
Yes, the sums are accurate, added a bottom row for the state
Thanks. Remove Olympia from the bottom row in favour of a null entry as it is not a county seat, and in the land area cell match formatting with that of county rows (add comma delimiter, add units, and add conversion).
Noted that Olympia is both state capital and county seat, fixed area conversion
The Former county names, Former counties, and Proposed counties sections that follow the list are very interesting. Each jumps straight into bullets however. Can each have an contextual sentence or two that introduces the bullets?
I have no idea what to say other than "Some counties changed their names", "Some counties no longer exist in Washington". There is no overarching context that I'm aware of that would be anything more than a bland duplicative line.
What about single one-liners such as:
"Four counties in Washington have changed their names between 1849 and 1925.";
"In the mid 1800s, eight former counties were established and subsequently disorganized, merged, dissolved, or split off into other territories."; and
"_____ counties were proposed prior to or during the existence of Washington Territory while nine counties were proposed within the first 16 years of Washington's statehood."
These are just quick ideas that you can adapt to properly suit.
Added
The External links section would be an appropriate place to include NACo's landing page in lieu of removing it from the "Area" column heading in favour of duplicated QuickFacts inline citations for each state introduced in the "Population (2019)" column.
Linked in EL
This is my first pass of reviewing this list article. Notwithstanding the above comments, it has already shaped up quite nicely, no doubt and presumably building off of up to the 21 others county lists that already have FL status. Any further comments from a second pass will less in quantity. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
aapply the abbreviation template to "FIPS" in the FIPS code column heading just like done for the Est. column header. Realize the acronym is introduced in prose but because it is used in the table this saves the reader from hunting for the acronym in the prose.
Found some time today to do this myself.
This is the first time I have witnessed the Countytabletop and Countyrow templates. Are scope cols and scope rows already embedded in these templates to conform with MOS:ACCESS?
Disregard. Found time today to look myself.
Ref titles need to meet WP:DASH, so double check all refs to confirm proper implementation.
This concludes my second pass and don’t anticipate raising anything new beyond final discussion on the outstanding previous comments. The article has shaped up as a good list. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine, and the link-checker shows no issues. One formatting concern exists, which is mentioned above: three refs – numbers 11, 42, and 53 – need en dashes to replace the hyphens in their titles. That is the only problem I found..Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although there was no response here, a look at the article reveals that the one issue has been resolved, so I'm saying the source review was passed. Please do mention the resolution of the issue next time, though, as I could have marked this as taken care of sooner. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the television series The Flash has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. It is similarly written and formatted as List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things, which I already got promoted to FL status. Looking forward to your comments and suggestions. - Brojam (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the show and find the descriptions in our articles hard to follow, but doesn't Tom Cavanagh portray the Reverse Flash as well as Wells? So that alias should be listed in the cast noms table, just like the other heroes/villains?
Result column initially sorts in the order 2nd/nominated/pending/won, which is really odd. Surely, Won should sort at the top, followed by 2nd?
Yes, a bit odd, but makes sense since it's sorting based on the label name. However, I've made "2nd place" now sort as "Second place" so if you sort descending then you will have the order as won/2nd/pending/nominated. - Brojam (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In ref 6, "Guinness World Records" is not the author of the book. Also, the ref needs a page number.
Charlize Theron is a South African and American actress. She has won many awards including Academy Award for Best Actress and Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Pedantically, a single actor can't win the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture - she was one of a number of people nominated (this also applies to the two entries on the table for this award and any other "ensemble" award - you need to note with whom she shared the nomination)
"Theron appeared in Niki Caro's drama North Country, in the film she portrayed" - that comma should be a semi-colon
"Theron performance in the film" - missing 's
When sorting the Result column, it goes Won > Nominated > 3rd > 2nd. I think it should go Won > 2nd > 3rd > Nominated.
Neither note is a full sentence, so they don't need full stops. Also, the second one needs a capital letter at the start.
Image review: Photo is an own work by a photographer with a long history of valid contributions on Commons. No issues or concerns regarding the license.
Content review:
The lead is very link heavy. I'd remove links to common terms like the three links in "biographical crime drama", "iron mine", and "Fox News", and consider also delinking "breakthrough role"
You have two different notes labeled "[a]" in two different places - one in the infobox and the other in the column header. Consider changing this (either manually renaming one of the "[a}"s or moving the infobox note into the Notes level 2 header)
"Charlize Theron is a South African and American actress" - shouldn't it be South African-born American actress?
"In 2005, Theron appeared in Niki Caro's drama North Country; in the film she portrayed a single mother and an iron mine worker experiencing sexual harassment." - think this can be In 2005, Theron appeared in Niki Caro's drama North Country as a single mother and ironworker experiencing sexual harassment.
"Theron received widespread acclaim for her performance, and she won the" - winning the is better
Wikilink MTV Movie Award for Best Female Performance in the lead
"and earned her the nominations for the Academy Award for Best Actress" - the first "the" isn't needed
The rest of the columns beside the Ref(s) columns in the accolades and honors table are missing scope=col for compliance with MOS:DTT
That's all I could find so I went ahead and added it myself :) Fmt for citations looks good and I couldn't spot any questionable sources. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my honest opinion, Jack Nicholson is the greatest male actor, bar none. Fun fact: he is the most nominated male actor by the Academy. ~ HAL33301:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), which won Best Picture and garnered him the Academy Award for Best Actor." - needs a source
"another western: Goin' South." - colon should be a comma
"Nicholson was awarded the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role." - needs a source
"He won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture for his acting in Terms of Endearment (1983)." - needs a source
"Prizzi's Honor (1985), for which Nicholson earned another Best Actor nomination from the Academy." - needs a source
"His role as Francis Phelan in Ironweed (1987) garnered him yet another Oscar nomination for Best Actor." - guess ;-)
"Hoffa, which was Danny DeVito's directorial debut." - needs a source
"His next role in As Good as It Gets (1997) garnered him the Academy Award for Best Actor." - needs a source
"His final film appearance was in How Do You Know (2010), reportedly retiring due to memory loss." => "His final film appearance was in How Do You Know (2010), after which he reportedly retired due to memory loss."
In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption for both tables should be included. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "|+ Example table caption"."
Would like locations for American Film Institute, Associated Press and Napa Valley Register
I added the locations for the AP and AFI, but I have been told by other reviewers that adding a location when it is in the publication's name is redundant.. ~ HAL33303:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if locations would be good for Bafta or Golden Globe awards, I think it's fine without but you may disagree
It is tempting to call Nicholson "one of the greatest actors of all time" but I'm not sure if the sources support that. The sources say "One of cinema’s truly iconic actors of the past fifty years" and "Jack Nicholson is regarded as one of the greatest actor's of his generation" so it's the "of all time" that concerns me. There is no doubt that Nicholson is great but I would rephrase to something closer to the sources perhaps something like "is widely considered to be among the greatest actors of his generation" – that being said, if you find better sources to support the claim, I'm cool with that as well. It looks like there are various lists (IMDB, The Delite, The Mystique) that could support your statement, not sure how reliable these lists in particular are though. Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: Changed inlcude to "included" since the ceremony has already occurred in the past
"least watched" should have a hyphen
Fixed: Added hyphen in between least and watched
"This marked the first time in Oscars history where four films" => "This marked the first time in Oscars history that four films"
Fixed: changed "where" to "that"
"It also was the sixth film" => "It was also the sixth film"
Fixed: Switched words "also" and "was" to read "It was also"
"most awarded foreign language films" needs a hyphen
Fixed: Added hyphen between "most" and "awarded"
"As a result Joaquin Phoenix winning Best Actor" - "of" is missing
Fixed: Added of to this sentence between "result" and "Joaquin"
"Best Documentary Fature" - typo
Fixed: Corrected "Fature" to "Feature"
On my screen, there's an absolutely colossal whitespace after the heading "Films with multiple nominations and awards" - any way to avoid that?
Not sure how to avoid. I'm waiting for an image check from User:SNUGGUMS to see if any images have no fair use alternative and therefore can be cut from the list.
I think the only way round it would be to remove some of the images from the right hand side. I think the article would look better without that enormous white space -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: Removed a few images to reduce white space,
I would recommend following the precedent of past Academy Awards articles by making the lede three paragraphs. As in those lists, I would add a bit on the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards.
I would have mentioned the Sci-Tech Awards in the intro if the ceremony did occur. However, it would not make sense to do so for this ceremony list due to three things. 1) AMPAS announced in 2018, that the ceremony this year would be held in June instead of February in order to accommodate the date change of the main ceremony from last Sunday in February to the second one. 2) This press release by AMPAS also mentioned that the "techonologies honored do not represent achievements within a specific awards year". 3) The COVID-19 epidemic had forced the Academy to postpone the Scientific and Technical Awards indefinitely according to this article. So, it would be inappropriate to mention the Sci-Tech awards as they have not occurred and the Academy declared they will no longer correspond to an awards year anymore. If anything, the upcoming Sci-Tech awards would be more appropriate to include in the 93rd Oscars.
You should wikilink "Nielsen ratings".
Nielsen ratings was already wikilinked in the infobox and in the "Ratings and reception" section. I wikiklinked Nielsen to Nielsen Media Research in the second paragraph of the intro since I am referring to the company that is keeping track of the viewership.
This marked the earliest date on which the ceremony was held. I would change "was" to "has been".
Fixed: Changed "was" to "has been".
Considering the precedent, I would also recommend adding a section on "Box office performance of nominated films" and including a table.
Unfortunately, I do not have enough information from good quality and reputable sources to do a section named "Box office performance of nominations films" and make a substantial table similar to some previous FL Oscar ceremony lists. Previous I had been able to do this because Box Office Mojo had charts of yearly box office where I could filter information to get figures of nominated films prior to the date of the nominations announcement. However Box Office Mojo changed its website last October, and unfortunately they removed the aforementioned feature in its redesigned website and other Oscar-related figures pertaining to this year's awards. Therefore, I am unable to gather information to report on box office performance of films not nominated for Best Picture nor make a table like in some years. I understand precedent, but I cannot report on figures that are not verifiable simplicity within the list (like the nominations and wins totals) or through verified resources due to the policy of Wikipedia:No original research. I believe in some precedent, but if I don't have adequate amounts of reliable sources, I can only work within the bounds of what I have.
"Singer Eminem made a surprise appearance" - Eminem is a rapper, not a singer
Fixed: Changed "singer" to "rapper".
"When the nominations were announced, seven of the nine films nominated for Best Picture earned a combined gross of $747.2 million dollars" - not sure what this means. Does it mean that the films had earned that much at that point?
Fixed: Added the phrase "at the time" to the end of the sentence.
"In addition, it garnered a lower 18–49 demo rating" - "demo" is very slangy. Use the proper word or reword the whole section.
Fixed: Slight rewording of sentences in order to accommodate change of "demo" to "demographic".
Fixed: Redirected the link to what appears to be the actual file souce/photo of Taika. It appears the author/photographer/owner of the photo cropped it.
I don't see how "Three months earlier in a ceremony at the Ray Dolby Ballroom of the Hollywood and Highland Center in Hollywood held on October 27, 2019, the Academy held its 11th Annual Governors Awards ceremony" is really relevant here.
Well the Governors Award ceremony is related to the main ceremony in that the honorees are usually mentioned somewhere in the main Oscar telecast and some of the recipients do attend the show. However, if you feel that it is redundant to do so, I can remove it. After all, it is mentioned underneath the awards table.
The second paragraph under "Winners and nominees" before its table is uncomfortably large. To make things easier on the eyes, let's split it and/or move some of its text into the first paragraph.
Fixed: Split second paragraph into two separate ones with one pertaning to Parasite and Bong Jong-ho and the other one pertaining to other notable winners and nominees.
Per MOS:CURLY:
"got out of the way of its stars’ shine" → "got out of the way of its stars' shine".
"what you can’t script" → "what you can't script"
"This year’s Oscars ceremony showed an art form in dire need" → "This year's Oscars ceremony showed an art form in dire need"
"this year’s Academy Awards rambled" → "this year's Academy Awards rambled"
Fixed: Changed apostrophes accordingly.
You could consolidate "Singer Billie Eilish and musician Finneas O'Connell" into "Singers Billie Eilish and Finneas O'Connell" when they're both in the music industry
Fixed: Consolidated Eilish and Finneas as "singers"
The wording "presenter of" and (especially) "introducer of" in the "Presenters" table (which is also missing a caption, so WP:ACCESS) is beyond awkward. You would never say "Actor X was the introducer of the Y segment." You would say "Actor X introduced the Y segment." It would be far more readable and natural to reword those entries to follow a format more like "Role: Presented the award for Best Support Actress and introduced Best Film nominee Y." —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Changed "presenter(s)" to "presented" and "introducer" to "introduced", accordingly. I was initially hesitant to change due to precedent of previous ceremony, but I decided to go ahead after reviewing the featured list review of the 82nd Academy Awards to see why the things they were for the presenters box. For courtesy though, if any article is undergoing FAC or FLC review, please post comments before making changes.
Thanks and sure... I honestly had no idea it was undergoing such a review, though, and it's not listed on the actual article page (nor is there an edit notice). So not exactly sure how people, especially newer editors, are supposed to figure out that editing the article during a candidacy is somehow bad form. I'm not a newer editor and this is the first time anyone has brought that up. Is there a guideline on it somewhere? Because if so, that should at least be listed when people go to edit a page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any missing authors, dates or publishers – all look reliable. I personally prefer linking the publisher/work (New York Times, Hollywood Reporter etc.) every time, so if that's something you might consider it should be a pretty quick fix with the select all tool and command f. Either way this is not outstanding enough to prevent a Pass for source review. Good work here. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 2015, when I nominated the similar PCA Player of the Year award, there was not a full published list of winners for this award, so I had to leave it for another day. Now, that information is available, and so I present this list for your inspection. A cricket award, given to the best young player in English county cricket, as voted by their peers, this is modelled off the aforementioned list. As always, all comments and criticism invited. Harriastalk09:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I probably should have used more words. I think enough of the players are lacking images (Lathwell, Crawley, Peng, Pope, Banton) that to include an image column would look messy. So, yes, a polite decline. Harriastalk09:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have John Arlott Cup for the PCA Young Player of the Year in bold, is that it's real name? I'm curious as to why that wouldn't be the name of the article. But in any case, you can create John Arlott Cup for the PCA Young Player of the Year as a viable redirect.
Created the redirect. I did hum and har over this; it is generally just referred to as the PCA Young Player of the Year, but both forms appear. Harriastalk08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is it only for English players by which I mean those who are eligible to play for England?
I think the focus of the row scopes should be the player name, not the year of the award.
I don't think so, see the discussion at this FLC; RexxS, who I consider the expert on these matters, clarifies that the rowscope should be "the cell in a row that uniquely identifies that row". Harriastalk08:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. The list of test matches has no real candidate for best target, so the number of the test match is probably the best. If there was a unique article for each and every one of those Test matches, then that would be the obvious target for the row scope. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right, I probably misinterpreted. A screen reader saying "1990 club Lancashire" then "1991 club Derbyshire" makes less sense to me than "Michael Atherton club Lancashire" then "Dominic Cork club Derbyshire". But as I tagged him above, I'm sure RexxS will chime in if it's wrong. Harriastalk09:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would have used player name for the row header. When there may be a choice between unique keys, then sometimes you can figure out what is best by considering how it would sound, just as Harrias does above. At other times, it might work either way, and then it comes down to an editors's preference – it's difficult to give hard-and-fast "rules". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has been some debate about this in previous reviews, when I have been asked to delink it. That page is specifically about the book; the website is published by the same company, but includes different content. That said, I have linked it for the moment. Harriastalk13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, I was admittedly unsure as well. The source review passes either way so do whatever you're most comfortable with. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been nominated three times prior, twice failed due to lack of input and once i withdrew to work on the sources. I have reworked the sources to make my latest FL (Mexican National Tag Team Championship), I've done a round of copy editing and I've had the Guild of Copy Editors work through it as well. I believe this represents a very fine body of work both prose, table and source wise and hope this will get enough attention this time. I will happily commit to doing a FL review for each person providing feedback PLUS one, which I will initate in the next day or two. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The championship was created originally" => "The championship was originally created"
"the Mexican promotion federation the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre" - firstly "promotion federation" is one word too many. Also, I have never seen it called "the" CMLL
"The championship predates the creation of the National Wrestling Alliance in 1948 [....] When EMLL joined the National Wrestling Alliance in 1952, the NWA prefix was added" - the subheaders in the table basically show the exact opposite of this.
"CMLL retained ownership of three NWA-branded championships which originated in the promotion.[1] The other two were the....." => "CMLL retained ownership of three NWA-branded championships which originated in the promotion,[1] the other two being the......"
Everything from "As with all professional wrestling championships....." until the end of that paragraph should probably be right near the start or right near the end of the lead, rather than kinda jammed in the middle of the title's history.
"In 1992, the then-champion Misterioso left CMLL [....] With the name change CMLL also created the CMLL World Welterweight Championship" - didn't the name change happen some years before 1992? If so, it seems odd to only mention it now.
" to unify the championships into the "J-Crown" championship" - can't see any reason for J-Crown to be in quotes here when it was used twice before without them
"...and then Great Sasuke, who won the tournament" - seem to be some words missing here
"demanded that CMLL (a non-member of NWA Mexico)" - shouldn't that just be "of the NWA"? Pretty sure NWA Mexico didn't have member promotions......
"CMLL ignored both requests." - a sentence of just four words should certainly be avoided, so attach it to the sentence before
"El Santo became the first NWA World Welterweight Champion by winning an eight-man tournament when he defeated Pete Pancoff in the finals." - seems a bit ridiculous to only mention this right at the end.
"Akantus is the most recent" => "Akantus was the most recent"
"to win the title on April 24, 2016 and making his last-known championship defense on April 24, 2016" - can you reword this so that you aren't stating the exact same date twice in the same sentence. Also, did he really win it and then make a defence the same day?
"Akantus is the 63rd overall champion" => "Akantus was the 63rd overall champion"
Echoing my comment above, I am pretty sure the first subheader is wrong
In some cases where there are multiple refs in a cell, they are not in correct numeric order
Row 5 - the footnote on its own in a great big cell looks odd - maybe put it against the date?
"Muñoz suffered a near fatal injury" => "Muñoz suffered a near-fatal injury"
"The championship was vacated when Misterioso left CMLL" - this is above the subheader indicating the name change. Either the name at this point was still EMLL or else the subheader is in the wrong place
"Otani vacated five of the six remaining J-Crown titles after being forced by the World Wrestling Federation to return their Light Heavyweight Championship belt," - six of the remaing seven, surely?
Can't see the point in linking the names of all the Toryumon shows simply to the promotion's article - you already linked it in the subheader and all those Easter egg links seem unnecessary. It's also inconsistent - you don't link "Summer Struggle 1997" to the New Japan article, for example
Was the Super Nova whom Ricky Marvin defeated really Mike Bucci? According to his article, he was in WWE at that time.
"Championship history is unrecorded from August 24, 2016 to current" => "Championship history is unrecorded from August 24, 2016 to present"
I would have "general" and "specific" subheaders within the refs
*ChrisTheDude thank you for your great feedback. I believe I have addressed all your comments, please do double check my work. Also since I promised to do a review in return for all reviews, I would like you to pick which article I should do an FLC review for, I don't believe you have a nomination yourself in the list and I want to make it "dealers choice" then. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The championship was created originally" => "The championship was originally created"
"the other two were the NWA World Middleweight Championship" => "the other two being the NWA World Middleweight Championship"
"CML had craeted" - two typos here
"CMLL ignored both requests completly," - typo in the last word
You changed the Super Nova link to Súper Nova, but I don't think it was him either. He was only 16 at the time and our article says he didn't work under the Súper Nova name till several years later. I think the wrestler in question was a Japanese worker (I found an unreliable-looking source saying it is rumoured that it was Super Shisa but as that isn't confirmed best to just remove the link altogether)
"Championship history is unrecorded from August 24, 2016 to present." - April, surely?
ChrisTheDude All addressed, except for "Currently", there are empty arena shows being held in Mexico so saying "April" is not correct, and as soon as shows resume "April" will be outdated. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand my point. You say in the lead that the last known title match took place in April 2016, but at the bottom of the table you say the title history is unknown from August. I believe that should be April. It has nothing to do with the current situation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Two men have held the title for just one day: Shinjiro Otani and Último Dragón. Both held the championship for one day as part of the J-Crown tournament." I would remove the last sentence, as this was already detailed in the third paragraph.
I know some disagree, but I would like to see the more obscure locations wikilinked in the table.
Get rid of the background colour in the Reigns by combined length table, so we can see the sort arrows.
Why does Chamaco Valaguez appear twice in the Reigns by combined length table?
Follow-up on that point, NFCC #1 is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I don't see why a photo of this belt could not be taken (created) at some point? I assume it is shown during events?
Harrias I have addressed them all except for wikilinking locations, I am getting conflicting feedback on these. I'd love to link anything "obscure" but struggle with a guideline on when to link and not to link. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting for the Duncan & Will source is all over the place; I was going to try to fix it but I can't be sure I'm doing it right. Ref 11, 12, 13, and 33 are e.g. "Duncan & Will 2000, p. 271.", but all of the other ones are e.g. "Duncan & Will (2000) page 390 "Karloff Lagarde 58/01/31 Mexico City, MEX"", except for ref 1, which is "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390, Chapter: "Mexico: EMLL NWA Welterweight Heavyweight Title [Lutteroth]"". You actually cite page 390 in 3 different formats as a result. I'd expect them all to be e.g. "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390" (with a "p." instead of page, and no period at the end), maybe with the quotes you're adding to the back if you really want them, though make sure to have a period after the page number to separate out the quote in that case, e.g. Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390. "blah blah"
Several other book sources are fully described in the references instead of short-style, which reads oddly as now everything is mixed. Consider moving all books to a "Sources" section, instead of only the 2 "General" books.
This general/non-general split also causes issues in e.g. refs 9 and 10- full duplicated refs to the same book, with slightly different page numbers (actually, overlapping)
In ref 3 and 5, you have the author as L.L. Staff- author fields are for named people only, and should be omitted if you only have "staff" as a byline.
You're doing some odd things with magazine issues- using cite news for a magazine which then forces you to do "|id=issue 2072" instead of "|issue=2072", and results in odd placement/formatting of the issue number in the final citation.
You don't really need to include incorporation marks in company names, e.g. ", Inc." or ", SA de CV"
Not required, but consider using the "|trans-title=" parameter to give English translations of non-English titles.
Natalie Wood was an American actress known for her roles in Rebel Without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass, and West Side Story. This is a list which covers her film and television career. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Natalie Wood (1938–1981) was an American actress who started her career by appearing in films directed by Irving Pichel as a child." → "Natalie Wood (1938–1981) was an American actress who started her career as a child by appearing in films directed by Irving Pichel." (As you have it now it seems like Pichel was a child and not Wood.)
"Wood appeared in the television sitcom The Pride of the Family (1953)." → "In 1953, Wood appeared as a regular cast member in the television sitcom The Pride of the Family (1953)."
The notes column in the filmography has only four entries. Two say "uncredited" and two say "cameo". Unless you're planning to add more notes at a later date, I suggest putting these in paratheses after the names of the characters she played and then remove the notes column. Jimknut (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MWright96: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. Unfortunately the Variety reviews from back then are a bit hit and miss with giving full publication dates and those labelled as December 31 are likely to be "placeholders" so have simply replaced those with the year of publication.Cowlibob (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that I could find which hasn't been mentioned is the use of "with" in the lede. To diversify it you could replace a few with "opposite". For example, she starred as a recalcitrant teenager in Rebel Without a Cause with James Dean would become she starred as a recalcitrant teenager in Rebel Without a Cause opposite James Dean or maybe she starred as a recalcitrant teenager opposite James Dean in Rebel Without a Cause. That's not even really necessary if you don't want to change it. Nice work. Pretty informative, never realized that was Wood in The Searchers. ~ HAL33304:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources look fine overall, and the link-checker shows no issues. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be hesitant about including locations for refs 6 and 7 since you don't include them anywhere else. You don't put it in ref 26 for the same source anyways.
Everything else looks good, consistent templates, formatting and reliability. Should be a quick pass if the locations are removed. Aza24 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, good catch. Keep up the good work with these lists, they are consistently concise, helpful and nicely formatted. Pass for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul2520 and I have been working on this list of library branches in Minnesota's largest library system for a few years. We both, but especially Paul, have journeyed all around the county to collect images of all 41 branches and have attempted to develop the most complete list in existence of the openings of the extant Hennepin County libraries. We are excited to work with any further comments and suggestions towards making this article a featured list, and appreciate all feedback. If promoted, we believe this would be the first List of library branches article to make FL status and hopefully serve as a useful template for future efforts to improve coverage of libraries worldwide. Thanks kindly! —Collintc21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Reywas92
This is a very nice list, but it should be merged to Hennepin County Library. That is quite a short article and the lead content is duplicative, so a split is not at all warranted. I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN since there don't appear to be sources that cover the topic of branches rather than the library generally. NYC is the only other list of branches but that's a different animal.
"the borders of" is extraneous
"across 24 cities and towns" -> "in..."
"located" is extraneous, readers know "in" is a locator adverb here
"Four of the branches" -> "Four branches"
Bloomington is missing wikilink
Only the second Minneapolis in the table is linked; link all or only the first
Notes column shouldn't be sortable
Southdale: "between" requires an "and"
North Regional's note is rather random: of course a public building would take a few years to go from proposal to construction completion
Rewrite "In late 1800s, opened in Fletcher–Loring Flour Mill"
Reywas92, thanks again for your review back in February. We recently worked through some additional feedback from The Rambling Man (see below). All your comments have now been addressed. While the Hennepin County Library article is still short, we've added additional context and references in the new List of Hennepin County Library branches § History section. Bobamnertiopsis and I found quite a few references via Newspapers.com mentioning the branches & branch expansion.
I would also suggest a merger, as the main article has very little additional content (other than the lead it essentially consists of a less-detailed list of locations). The merged article would still really be a list, though, so I don't see why the FLC couldn't continue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dank
Yes, agreed that this is an attractive and useful list, and that the main article is so slight that it would be better to merge it with this, and that the merged article would be appropriate for WP:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Query - there seems to be a consensus among all the editors who have commented so far that this article and the main one on the library should be merged, but in six weeks nothing's been done about this. Are there any plans to merge.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude. Bobamnertiopsis and I have reason to believe the list is relevant still (see discussion here). I have some thoughts that I was about to write on Bobamnertiopsis' talk page, that I'll put here.
Five paras for the lead is too much really, per MOS:LEAD.
"41 library branches. " this bold is unnecessary. It doesn't match the title of the article and it's not a redirect title either, so just use plain text.
"Hennepin County Library" is used four times in the first two sentences. Repetitive.
Minneapolis is overlinked in the lead.
"2003-04, and 2018-19." should be en-dashes, and be consistent with consecutive year ranges, either repeat the whole year or just use the last two digits.
Thanks The Rambling Man! Still working on the lede. Can you point us to somewhere with more info on linking linkable items in tables? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Everything is addressed I think. —Collintc18:59, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that if you link something in a sortable table, don't just link the first occurrence, because despite overlink concerns, if the table is re-ordered, there's no guarantee that the linked item will still be the first one. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been digging through Newspapers.com to see what I could find about the history of the HCL's branch expansion(s). I think the periods from the 1920s through the 1960s and the 1970s through 1990s both need a little work still so if you want to do any hunting there, that would be useful! —Collintc19:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bobamnertiopsis, I broke the lead up (addressing The Rambling Man's first point) into a separate history section. I found Newspapers.com references for 1934 and 1955... after digging for a while, I think many newspaper mentions are events, hours, etc. Some interesting updates around debate about Saturday hours, and a couple mentions when films were first allowed to be checked-out.
I also found [24] (mentions bookmobiles and county/state libraries) and [25] (talks about declining use of bookmobiles in the cities). Neither of which are currently cited, but I felt on the fence about how useful they would be.
What do you think? Do you want to search for something from the 70s-90s? Or is it enough that a number of dates in the table are in that date range? = paul2520 (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again so much for your review, The Rambling Man! Bobamnertiopsis fixed most of the suggestions, and I broke the lead into "proper lead" and a new History section (with additional context about the history of the branches). Do you have any other thoughts/comments? = paul2520 (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't trim too much from the merged lead... any specific suggestions, if you think it should be condensed further? = paul2520💬14:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Bibliography looks good, I tweaked it around for consistency a little bit.
Wow I really have nothing, consistent use of "cite news" and "cite web", consistent links to publishers and works, all reliable sources. Easy pass - Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"the driver with the most fastest laps" - I know this is technically correct, but "most fastest" just reads weirdly to me, like a little kid saying something is "the most bestest" :-) Maybe change it to "the highest number of fastest laps"
"there is a countback, of those who are tied the driver" - I would simply say "there is a countback and the driver"
"the most second-fastest laps" - again I think "the highest number of" would work better
In the table, what does the "won" column actually mean? Does it mean the race by which the driver had obtained an unassailable lead in terms of the number of fastest laps? Or something else? Whatever it means, I think it needs to be made clearer via a note above the table.
It would be great if you could add a lede image of the trophy itself. You should be able to get through fair-use, but then again copyright is always a complicated pain.
"The DHL Fastest Lap Award is given annually by the courier and Formula One global partner and logistics provider DHL..." I'd replace the first and it that sentence with a comma instead
"DHL, the trophy's official naming patron,[3] first awarded it in 2007." I'd change this to 'First awarded in 2007 by DHL, the trophy's official naming patron, and then include the next sentence as part of this one.
I was surprised to find that Gable's filmography wasn't a FL - seemed like something someone would have done in 2008. He's a pretty notable actor, so I decided to give it a swing myself. ~ HAL33319:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included for each of the 3 tables. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
Images utilized are licensed and tagged
However, they are lacking alt text
"His next role was alongside leading-ladies Ava Gardner and Deborah Kerr in The Hucksters (1947). Gable then appeared with Ava Gardner and … – since Ava Gardner is mentioned in back-to-back sentences, you might want to de-wikilink and refer to her by only her surname in the second sentence.
Read the prose in detail – everything else looks all good.
"over 70 films and almost 20 short films" - short films are still films, so probably worth changing the first one to feature films
Done
"After many uncredited and minor roles" - are his uncredited roles included in the table, or is it not known what they were? If included, they should be noted.
"Gable's first leading role was opposite Crawford in Dance, Fools, Dance (1931), the first of eight collaborations with Crawford" - to avoid using her name twice in such close proximity, maybe change the second clause to "the first of eight films in which they appeared together
Done
"Gable appeared alongside the Three Stooges and Fred Astaire, his acting debut" - slightly confusing as to whose debut it was - assuming it was Astaire's, say "Astaire, who was making his acting debut"
Done
"his costar" - isn't "co-star" normally written with a hyphen?
Done
"The following year, he starred with leading-lady" - this didn't have a hyphen when used before
Done
"During the War," - don't think war needs a capital
Done
"Gables first film" - missing apostrophe
Done
"His next role was alongside leading-ladies" - again, does this take a hyphen or not?
Refs against Combat America aren't in numerical order
Done
In the lead you said he appeared in almost 20 short films, but the Short films section only lists nine. Even if you add in the war films, that only totals 12, which isn't really "almost 20". Are there some missing, or is "almost 20" overstating it a bit?
There should be a "the" in the Three Stooges pipe.
Done
"iconic" moustache. I have no doubt that Clark's 'tach was indeed iconic, but as an encylopedia we really a source to say this rather than claim it in Wikipedia's voice...
Done
The Call of the Wild no "The".
Done
"Gable on the poster for Gone with the Wind (1939)" with Vivien Leigh.
Done
In the tables, the row scope should be the key element of each row, and that, in my opinion, is the title of the work, not the year of its release.
On my screen, the refs are squashed into three columns by the Combat America poster, you could use {{clear}} after that table to prevent it from happening.
Done
I don't think we need a location for Variety.
Done
Refs with -- need to be updated to have – instead.
The Rambling Man I appreciate the comments, and I have addressed all but the sixth one. I prefer making the year the scope-row. It's not a huge dealbreaker if I have to change it, but is it okay if I don't? ~ HAL33315:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gable and Crawford in Strange Cargo (1940) In the other captions the first names of the actresses are included, it would look consistent and nice to include it here as well.
Also, Grace Kelly and Crawford are not wikilinked in the picture captions, either link them all or none (they all appear in the lead).
What's the reasoning behind the notes in the "Notes" column? Is there a systematic approach to what information should be included there?
Source review – As with the other filmography FLC I just reviewed references for, the formatting and reliability of the sources appear up to snuff. The link-checker shows one issue: the original version of ref 22 is no longer working, and you'll need to switch the first link over to the archived one by changing the urlstatus parameter to dead. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solid article. I do have a question though: should the dates be in dmy format since it's French Canada? ~ HAL33316:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: in these cases, I would think the language of an article would be the deciding factor, as opposed to its location (e.g. appropriate to use dmy for the Vancouver article in French). mdy is the prevalent format for English-speaking Canadians. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation", which I take to also cover things like date formats. The same section specifically references the use of Canadian English for an article on a Canadian topic. I would therefore say that this article should use the standard variety of English used in Canada as a whole (including date formats), on the grounds that (to the best of my knowledge) "French-Canadian English" isn't a thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support – something of a rarity for me, in that I can't find anything to nitpick. You're getting altogether too good at this... Harriastalk15:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look good, and the link-checker tool shows no issues, which isn't a surprise since all of the links are archived. Everything appears fine on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A total of 48 lists of number-one country songs have now been successfully promoted to FL status, so here is what will hopefully be the 49th. In this particular year, a new record was set for the longest stay at number one by a female singer which would stand for close to 50 years....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MEDUSA
Ref two brings an error
Billboard refs don't show website or publishers only retrieved
stood until 2012, when Taylor Swift's → I see no reasons to add a comma
|rowspan="5"|"[[King of the Road (song)|King Of The Road]]" → |rowspan="5"|"[[King of the Road (song)|King of the Road]]"
In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, a table caption should be included. However, I think this quote by PresN applies to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
Read the prose in detail – looks all good.
Images utilized are licensed and tagged, with appropriate alt text.
Source review – The reliability of the referencing looks fine throughout, and the link-checker shows no issues (it doesn't seem to like the Billboard links, but the ones I checked worked). One formatting issue exists: refs 1 and 11 need en dashes to replace the hyphens in their titles for style.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Mary Pickford was one of the most popular and innovative motion picture actresses in cinematic history. This timeline was created to highlight major events of her life and juxtapose them against the development of cinema and also events in the history of the United States. I have modeled this after the timelines of Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft. I requested a peer review two months ago. It was never answered and is now closed. I'm now making it a featured list candidate. Please help if you can.Jimknut (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and support from Chidgk1
Wow an enormous amount of work has been done on this.
Made a few minor edits - feel free to revert
Consider changing "June 9 – Charlotte Smith" to "June 9 – Sister Charlotte Smith". I guessed it was her sister but had to click the link to be 100% sure.
I have changed this so it now reads, "Mary's sister, Charlotte Smith". I did the same for their brother's birth.
Not sure this is a good idea - probably other reviewers have opinions - but as well as the date range how about adding her age range and/or a subtitle e.g. "1911-1915 Marriage and ...."
No, I will keep it as it is. The timelines of Austen and Wollstonecraft only use the year range.
Might be amusing to make some connection between Chaplin signing for $10,000 a week and then Pickford renegotiating her salary (or was it just coincidence?)
It might be. However, I think information of that kind would be better in the main biography of Pickford.
"Following the release of Secrets (1933) Pickford" => "Following the release of Secrets (1933), Pickford"
Fixed.
"However, she remained active as a producer for several years afterward" - as there are several short sentences in succession, I would join this to the previous one.
Fixed.
Also, I personally would say "afterwards" at the end there, but then I am British - is "afterward" a valid American English usage, or is it a typo?
I'm using a system called "Grammarly" to correct my spelling. Apparently, "afterward" is the proper spelling in American English, so I'm leaving it as it is. Thanks, anyway.
"The timeline offered here presents significant events in Mary Pickford's life and juxtaposed" => "The timeline offered here presents significant events in Mary Pickford's life and juxtaposes"
Fixed.
Lead image caption is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop.
1895 - "John Charles leaves his wife and children" - any reason for using his first name and middle name? I would have thought first name and surname would make more sense
1898 - probably best to say "John Smith Sr" to make it 100% clear who died
1898 - note about the USS Maine starts with a lower case letter, unlike all other notes to this point
1900 - "Baby Gladys (Mary)" - but she wasn't known as Mary at this point, so remove that bit
1904 - no reason for a capital T on "The" Panama Canal
1910 - "Release of Ramona with Mary in the title for" - that last word doesn't look right
1911 - "Mary stars Owen Moore in her first IMP short" - think there's at least one word missing here
What a HUGE amount of work. I've read through it once and will give it another go in a day or two but am inclined to support. Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't link the locations (only some are linked now anyways) – that's rather unusual for FLs and FAs
Unlinked.
Make sure you link all the publishers, only some are linked atm
All linked except for the Eyman book as there is no Wiki article for that publisher.
I recognize you used "NY" since the city name is the same as the state name, but I would advise against this since you don't use abbreviations for other states. "New York, New York" is fine.
Added some links to publishers and authors myself so as to not bother you with so much of this tedious task. Will keep checking refs later, looks good so far. Aza24 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe that it meets all of the featured list criteria. Competitive Smash is the biggest it's ever been - current COVID-related hiccup not withstanding - and this is a comprehensive list of every major offline tournament held in the game thus far. The list itself should be easy to maintain going forward, as when events are happening, there's an average of 2 or 3 majors a month.
"Each player has a percentage meter which raises" => "Each player has a percentage meter which rises"
"(a fan-made mod of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Project M, has also been played competitively)" - not sure how this relates to the rest of the sentence/is relevant
"Ultimate released in November 2018 to critical acclaim" => "Ultimate was released in November 2018 to critical acclaim"
"on route" => "en route"
Street Fighter V should be in italics
So should Injustice 2
"Tournaments held outside of the United States require less entrants" => "Tournaments held outside of the United States require fewer entrants"
ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review. I've made all the changes except for the Project M change. The reason for its inclusion is to detail the competitive history of the franchise. Many Ultimate players previously competed in earlier titles, including Project M. Do you suggest that I restructure that sentance to make that point explicit, or remove mention of Project M as immaterial to this specific list? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, I get it now. It would probably be better to say "Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is the fifth officially released Smash Bros. title and the Nth to be played competitively. A fan-made mod of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Project M, has also been played competitively." If all five official games have been played competitively then say "Super Smash Bros. Ultimate is the fifth officially released Smash Bros. title; all five have been played competitively, as has a fan-made mod of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Project M." Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude: I didn't see your suggested wording until after I made my change to the article, but I went back and used your wording because it was more concise. I added the sentence "Many of the top ranked Ultimate players were highly ranked in previous Smash Bros. titles." to tie the paragraph together, and dropped "Ultimate was released in November 2018 to critical acclaim" down to start the next paragraph. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the tables
The date column sorts in alphabetical order of month rather than in actual date order. Use a {{dts}} template to make them sort correctly.
The prize pool column sorts on the symbol and amount, meaning than ¥0 is treated as a bigger value than $35,300. Use a {{sort}} template to make them sort in actual value order.
In the caption on the third photo, Glutonny can't be in the centre of two people
Although I could understand, I think you should clarify that the tiers decrease in difficulty from S, A, B, to C. Also, do those stand for anything, particularly the S?
I would shorten "Panda Global Rankings Ultimate" to just PGRU in the final paragraph of the lede.
Not entirely necessary, but could you find a photo suitable for the lede image?
Support My concerns have been adequately addressed. Hopefully you can find a good picture, but don't sweat if you can't. ~ HAL33323:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included in both tables. This quote by PresN might apply to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
Lots of locations linked that shouldn't be per WP:OVERLINK; Toyko, New York City, Toronto, Los Angeles, London are the most glaring, but honestly most of them could be unlinked.
As always, I'm not keen on the US-centric styling "City, State" for US locations, but simply "City, Country" for non-US countries, but this seems to be an argument I'm never going to win.
The date ranges in the tables need endashes, not hyphens.
The date for Glitch 7 needs a year adding.
Make the Refs column unsortable.
All the images require alt text per MOS:ACCIM, unless you consider them "purely decorative".
Done, I think. Please let me know if I got it right.
Done. I delinked every city that didn't have a state in the article title.
I'm open to an alternate style if you have one you prefer. Should I be adding the country to US locations or adding the state/province to non-US ones?
I would add the country to the North American locations personally, though I note that you might not have the width to manage it. Possibly a note in the header, something like "Unless otherwise noted, location is in the United States"? (In which case, "Toronto, Ontario" would have to change to "Toronto, Canada".) Harriastalk08:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also prefer left-aligned for the same reason, but I looked at other FL candidates and they were all center aligned, so I decided to just do it instead of argue in hopes that the nomination would go smoothly. But since you brought it up, if it's not a deal-breaker for CAPTAIN MEDUSA, I'd prefer to change it back. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am responding to your comments in the order they appear above:
1. They do, but given names are not commonly used in esports. If you asked 100 competitive Smash fans who "Gavin Dempsey" or "Tyler Martins" were, most would have no idea; but ask them who "Tweek" and "Marss" were and they'd know. While WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, I think the sentiment translates to this as well.
2. I had tier list linked in the lead. I've copied the link into the caption.
3. Done.
4. I've shortened the lead by removing most of the last paragraph and making one line a note.
5 and 6. For many tournaments, there are no reliable sources for prize pools. For those that do have sources, there is almost never a breakdown, or even a listing of the winner's take. Other Smash wikis assume the pool to be $10 per entrant, noting that it's an assumption (see here, note prize pool hover text), but that's not something I feel comfortable doing.
Very thorough formatting throughout. The only thing I would like to see is more links to the articles for websites/publishers since you link some (Metacritic, Variety, VG247) and not others (Wired, Polygon, Twitter, Newsweek, Gamespot, Daily Esports etc) Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I think I've now linked to everything that has an article (Daily Esports does not) with the exception of Twitter and YouTube, since those aren't publishers per se, they're mediums. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good call with excluding links to Twitter and YouTube, the sourcing looks great now. Sorry to bother you with the tedious task of linking publishers/websites! Anyways, pass for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer. He was won various awards including two Academy Awards, two British Academy Film Awards, and three Golden Globe Awards. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk13:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The next year, Pitt appeared in Terry Gilliam's science fiction Twelve Monkeys, he won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture[" => "The next year, Pitt appeared in Terry Gilliam's science fiction film Twelve Monkeys, for which he won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture"
"Pitt won Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture,[14] the film" => "Pitt won Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture,[14] and the film"
"He won Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor" => "He won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor"
The two films starting with 12 should sort under T for Twelve
A Mighty Heart should sort under M
All the films starting with T should sort under the next word
The same film is shown as both Mr and Mrs Smith and Mr. & Mrs. Smith
Just a question really, you say he's won two Academy Awards (for example) but one of those was for the movie, not him individually. Isn't it misleading to say that he himself has won two Oscars?
I unfortunately do not have time to do a full review, but I just wanted to comment that the caption for the infobox image should mention where it was taken and not just the year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm not sure about 58. It looks like the archive date is the same as the publishing date (January 3, 2020) but the publishing date isn't listed when it would make sense to do so since one can't assume the two to be the same
Ref #67 is missing the author (this ref for "The wrap" might also make more sense in the cite news template)
75 missing author and date (it's in small text at the top)
Done IMDB refs replaced with news articles, title fixed.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Done Table includes special appearances as well, including 51 in total.
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
