Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2013
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Dan Leno, the leading English music hall comedian of his day, became, later in his career, chiefly known for his pantomime dame roles in the lavish, spectacular and very popular Christmas pantomimes at London's Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, from 1888 to 1904. Earlier last year, Ssilvers and I successfully saw through the promotions of Dan Leno to FA and his list of songs sketches and monologues to FL status. As we went along, we researched his pantomimes and his handful of other theatre productions and compiled this short list, which also supports the main article. We feel confident that this article conatins a thorough and comprehensive list of Leno's theatrical productions and that it meets the criteria needed for FL consideration. We invite any comments and suggestions, which would be greatfully received.CassiantoTalk 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, for anyone interested in Leno's pantomime and theatrical acting career, as opposed to his far more extensive music hall career, this list article, including its sortable table of the theatrical productions in which Leno performed, gives, in convenient format, details about all of the theatrical productions in which Leno had acting roles that would have been too detailed for the main Leno article. We look forward to your comments. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – comprehensive, well-documented, with highly readable introduction. I don't see how this could be improved at all. Tim riley (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Tim! :-) -- CassiantoTalk 11:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I had my say in PR and made a few little technical tweaks during the development process. It's a very good article indeed: it covers what it needs to, and does so in a very readable way. The table is noce and sortable and I think it all works OK, from what I can see. I've not done the images to any great depth, but they look good on a cursory scan of the licenses. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your review and advice, SchroCat. Wikipedia would not look as good without knowledgeable contributors like you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK. Some need slightly different tags or a bit more details. Sources and authors provided, where available.
- File:Dan_Leno_and_Herbert_Campbell.jpg - OK (author info already expanded)
- File:Augustus_Harris.jpg - OK (i fixed erronous author info, please double-check)
- File:Mrs._Kelly.jpg - OK.
Suggest to add publisher, location and year of publication to all book sources (ISBN, when available). A link can rot, so it's better to have the basic data directly available.
- Done. -- CassiantoTalk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Leno_as_Sister_Anne_1901.jpg -
notOK.1901 is too new for PD-70. However, PD-1923 together with PD-UK-unknown will work (if you did a "reasonable enquiry" for the author without success).
- Done. -- CassiantoTalk 11:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Leno3.jpg -
notOK.Same as above, try PD-1923 and PD-UK-unknown if author can't be found
- Done. The author was found online as being Tom Browne who died in 1910. The image description has been updated. -- CassiantoTalk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- not listed remaining 5 images - all OK.
Cassianto asked me for a quick image check, but i won't formally vote, as i know not enough about the specific FLC-criteria. Nevertheless it looks like a great list with a lot of effort being spent on it. GermanJoe (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again GJ for taking the time to review the images it is really appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 11:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome, was fun to read up on an unfamiliar topic (status updated). Btw, is it "Sister Ann" or "Sister Anne"? Microscopic nitpick, but list and caption have both spellings. GermanJoe (talk) 12:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is "Sister Anne". I have requested that the file be renamed to reflect the correct spelling. Thanks! -- CassiantoTalk 15:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you GermanJoe. Yes, I agree that it is Anne. If you google this pantomime, you can see the name spelled both ways, but this poster shows that at Drury Lane they spelled it "Anne" in this production. Of course, Bluebeard is a french fairy tale, so it is only a translation. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A nice list. I have not noticed any particular problem. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your support. -- CassiantoTalk 23:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A very nice piece of work - well done! The table is well-organised, accessible and functional. Normally I might have preferred the production as the row header, but productions are not unique and some of the titles are very long, so you made a better choice by using the date. Just a few minor points about the images: a couple of them have empty alt tags, which should only happen for decorative images that have no link, because otherwise a screen reader will get a link announced but not necessarily know where the link goes. There are also a lot of images; on my widescreen monitor they extend at least one picture beyond the bottom of the article. My advice is to prune a few of them out - remember that images are meant to illustrate a point that you are making relevant to the article/list, not just to decorate it. Some are useful to show how Leno dressed for his parts, or how he was caricatured, but I'm not sure of the point being made by Augustus Harris.jpg or Leno, Danvers and Campbell.jpg, for example. It would be quite possible to create a commons category called 'Dan Leno' and use the template
{{Commons category|Dan Leno}}on the page (and other pages!) to direct viewers to the entire category - that's the normal advice if you have a lot more pictures than can be comfortably accommodated on the page. Nevertheless, the points I raise above are minor and do not detract from my support for this very well-executed list. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you RexxS. Your support, as always, is valued. The category sounds like a great idea! i havent a clue how to do it, but I shall ask about and read up on the instructions. I will also check the alts again later today. We played around with the images on big, medium and small screened devices so we could get everything to fit, which it did. However, if you say the images are causing a bleed into the next section we may have to discuss a further prune. Ss, which shall we go for? I was thinking Marie Lloyd? -- CassiantoTalk 00:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Rexx. Yes, I deleted Lloyd and moved the right-facing cartoon up to the text. That should do it. I don't see any empty alt tags, though. Do you see what Rexx means? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a useful Firefox addon called "Web Developer Toolbar" that adds some neat tricks like outlining images with empty alt attributes - I find it very useful to spot missing alts. I've added some example alt text (which was missing) to the lead image. The 'Dame trot' had alt text but you hadn't put "alt=". I've moved the images outside of the table in wiki-text to make the table self-contained if anybody wants to copy it. Finally, I've moved up the left-side cartoon one paragraph as it otherwise pokes down into the Productions section on my monitor and moves the entire table over by 150px! The other option would be to use {{-}} before == Productions == to force a break. Please excuse me and feel free to revert, alter or re-use any of these changes - I just thought they were easier to do than try to describe them to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken up your advice and I'm now trying to understand the workings of the Toolbar. In relation to the moved image, I am getting a bit of text squeeze on my small screened device, but I suppose what works for one won't always work for the other. Your edit looks great for me, thanks again! -- CassiantoTalk 00:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a useful Firefox addon called "Web Developer Toolbar" that adds some neat tricks like outlining images with empty alt attributes - I find it very useful to spot missing alts. I've added some example alt text (which was missing) to the lead image. The 'Dame trot' had alt text but you hadn't put "alt=". I've moved the images outside of the table in wiki-text to make the table self-contained if anybody wants to copy it. Finally, I've moved up the left-side cartoon one paragraph as it otherwise pokes down into the Productions section on my monitor and moves the entire table over by 150px! The other option would be to use {{-}} before == Productions == to force a break. Please excuse me and feel free to revert, alter or re-use any of these changes - I just thought they were easier to do than try to describe them to you. --RexxS (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those changes seems good, Rexx. Thanks for fixing the alt text. I put the left-side cartoon back where it was (as Cassianto says, that caused more problems for most viewers), but I added the {{-}} as you suggested. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Rexx. Yes, I deleted Lloyd and moved the right-facing cartoon up to the text. That should do it. I don't see any empty alt tags, though. Do you see what Rexx means? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ21 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. Originally included on the main Ivy Queen article. I then moved the list of award tables to a separate article while expanding the tables with more awards and nominations. The list follows the same style as List of awards and nominations received by Ricardo Arjona which is also listed as FL. Regards. DivaKnockouts (talk) and ΛΧΣ21 03:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well formatted and referenced. — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment—I made some tweaks to the lede and should explain my addition of quotation marks around the award titles, something I do not do often. Reading this sentence, "...was awarded both Hot Latin Song of the Year, Female and Tropical Airplay Song of the Year, Female out of five total nominations she received for the song", the comma placements caught me off guard for a second. I think the quotation marks clarify that the ", Female" parts are in the names. Overall, the lede is well written and well structured. The fact that the infobox image shows her facing to the right is a bit of a pet peeve, so if you can replace that with an image facing towards the page, that would be nice. If you don't want to, it's OK; I'm only nit-picking. Also, why do some bundled citations only have one reference (8, 9, 12, 13, 14)? I'd remove the bullets. Finally, the number of nominations adds up to 31, not 32. Otherwise, good work. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support—a job well done. I have nothing else for now, but if I do, I'll let you know. Thanks for the prompt responses! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*" for her contributions to the music industry in the genres of " --> have a phonetic break by adding a comma "for her contributions to the music industry, in the genres of "
|
Oppose from IndianBioSupport – Seems a pretty comprehensive list. Here are few of my quabbles. I initially wanted to just comment and was almost gonna support, but found quite a few prose and MoS issues that I'm opposing for now.
Let me know if these issues are fixed. I don't watch the nominations so ping me in my talk page. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 12:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your interesting input and comments. I appreciate them. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the prompt actions DivaKnockouts. For I have gone ahead and supported the list. Best wishes. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review IndianBio :) — ΛΧΣ21 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the prompt actions DivaKnockouts. For I have gone ahead and supported the list. Best wishes. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. The first review went stale without flagging any major concerns. I hope that this time around the list draws enough attention. Thanks in advance for any constructive feedback MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can't detect any issues. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport A couple from me.
- in the lead, suggest "has now been succeeded by" instead of "is now succeeded by". I don't think we quite got the tense right in the ACL's I reviewed recently.
- Posthumous recognition is duplicated as a link in the body ("Recipients" section).
- done, removed link in the body MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- no dabs, external link issues, missing alt text, duplicate citations, reflinks issues, redirect probs or copyvios detected per those toolserver tools.
- no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recently reviewed two (other) RK lists for A class, and this incorporates all of the suggestions made in those reviews.
- no action taken MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure about the need to mix Hauptmann (or any other rank for that matter) with "of the Reserves" in English. Given there is no appreciable difference between a given rank and a given rank of the Reserves (in terms of equivalence), you could render the first mention followed by (Captain) or (Captain of the Reserves) then carry on with the German version fully italicised throughout. Not a war winner, but I assume you are at the beginning of this series at FLC level, and it would probably be best to crack the rationale on this one early, especially as there have been queries about italicisation and anglicisation of German ranks at ACL in this series.
- The list is sortable. The order is arbitrary after the first sort. Because of this, overlinking is allowed on sortable lists. Wouldn't this apply to your suggestion about translations as well? MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I still think you could render all ranks in German only, so long as they are linked, no problem. But a minor matter, not an obstacle to FL.
- At your usual high standard, well done.
- Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A pleasure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment have been over variants of these lists many times, always of a high quality, just avoid the "SCHERZERS MILITAER-VERLAG. " shouting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment: Perhaps add a visual representation (similar to the KIA and disputed entries) to indicate recipients with higher grade crosses in addition to mentioning it in the notes? Winning the highest military award multiple times is a major achievement so I think it would be good if the reader could easily identify the people on the list who have done so. Obviously this is only a suggestion and not a problem with the article. Chamal T•C 08:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could add something like (see below), would this work? MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This along with the + (plus) indicates that a higher grade of Knight's Cross was awarded as well.
- Yes, that's what I was thinking of. Chamal T•C 08:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Very high quality article. Chamal T•C 16:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Zia Khan, The Rambling Man (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Cook is one of the best Test batsman in the history of England cricket. Zia Khan is very excited nominating this one. In fact, we have another similar list at FLC right now which "has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed" there. Zia Khan thinks that can nominate this list. The Rambling Man is interested in improving the list, so has the co-nomination. As always, look forward to the comments/sugesstions from anyone, especially FLCers. Zia Khan 00:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 09:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 08:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Meets the standards. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
*Comments by Crisco 1492
|
- Comments from me addressed. Waiting for Vesantry (who seems to know much more about cricket) to finish weighing in before I support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahhhh! thanks for your compliment :) —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its amazing! Have you really seen this right now? Zia Khan 16:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thanks for the comments, BTW! Zia Khan 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose. Looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, thanks for the comments, BTW! Zia Khan 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
ICC should be spelled out in the first paragraph.Reference 8 needs a publisher (Wisden).Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Zia Khan 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support Great list, I couldn't find any issues with it. Jujutacular (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No problems I can see. Chamal T•C 16:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. Zia Khan 18:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Elder Scrolls (abbreviated as TES) is an action role-playing open world video game series developed by Bethesda Game Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. The Elder Scrolls games take place on the fictional world of Nirn, on the continent of Tamriel, a large landmass divided into nine provinces. The actual Elder Scrolls play a very limited role in the storyline of the series, serving only as framing plot device, and are rarely referred to in-game, or even in the in-game literature. The first game, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, was released in 1994. It was intended for players to assume the role of an arena combatant, but development shifted the game into a role-playing game (RPG), beginning a tradition that persists throughout the series' history. The first nomination failed because after two users opposed based on a misleading interpretation of the forking criteria for featured lists, I decided to withdraw the nomination and focus on other things. As I think it meets the criteria (or its very close to it), I bring this back again to FLC. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 04:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Axem Titanium
Axem Titanium (talk) 01:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per 3.b I am not convinced that the tables cannot reasonably be included at the end of Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a table of all games released for a series be included at the end of an article of the development of only one of those games? This makes no sense. 3b has no weigh here, Nergaal. — ΛΧΣ21 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ^ What he said. Status 04:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How can a table of all games released for a series be included at the end of an article of the development of only one of those games? This makes no sense. 3b has no weigh here, Nergaal. — ΛΧΣ21 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - As I've said before, I really do prefer Template:Video game titles to Template:ListEntry/VG, but it's an aesthetic choice. I'm also fine with the multi-citation refs you have; it's not as immediate what goes with what as it would be if you stuck each ref in the appropriate table cell, but it's honestly not much different than sticking them all in a "ref" column. My one comment- seeing as there are two books and can only be a handful of albums, have you considered expanding the list into "List of The Elder Scrolls media"? Not required, but I think it would work well. --PresN 18:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I may expand it later. I was thinking about it, but given that I won't have much time soon, I thonk I won't be able to expand it anytime soon. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to see this whenever you get a chance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I may expand it later. I was thinking about it, but given that I won't have much time soon, I thonk I won't be able to expand it anytime soon. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – In refs 9 and 10, there are books that use pp. for a single-page cite; those should be p. instead.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed. — ΛΧΣ21 01:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 14:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria. TBrandley (what's up) 18:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a very nice list, and it does have sufficient entries, but why does this need to be separate from (and somewhat redundant to) List of airports in British Columbia? A region column could be in the table to sort by the unofficial subdivisions of BC. Reywas92Talk 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reywas makes a good point I think it's feasible this list could merged into the British Columbia one and a region column added. NapHit (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not so sure. The amount of detail in the lead and the additional fields in this list make it perfectly justifiable to standalone. The main BC list is massive, I have counted the entries, but I suspect there are well over 200 entries, which if expanded as this list has been expanded, would be unmanageably large and would require some SALs to be branched out from it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Rambling. The BC list is way to large. I think it would be best to separate each region into a separate list. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley (what's up) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley (what's up) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, "Okanagan" is sufficient, if people don't know what that is there's a short explanation and link in the lede. If the name is sufficient for the article, it's sufficient for subarticles. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is nothing to disambiguate. TBrandley (what's up) 02:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed true, but just having "the Okanagan" sounds sort of awkward to me. To compare, Canada is a well known country, and Okanagan is a region, that I personally, never even heard of before. It might give better premise to the list. List of airports in Okanagan, British Columbia may also work better. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing to disambiguate and we would not do the following: List of airports in the Canada country, unless there is a specific reason. I have created that as a redirect for now, though. TBrandley (what's up) 01:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest renaming to List of airports in the Okanagan region. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Rambling Man convinced me. This meets the FL criteria and can be a standalone list per the issues stated above. — ΛΧΣ21 20:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Great list, no issues. Status 03:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a water aerodrome? I can't see anything on this list pointing to another article that tells me about it, and I frankly have no idea what to think. If we don't have a page that tells us anything, create a red link so that someone might think about creating such a page for people like me! It might be worth linking to airport and heliport too, just to be safe.
- Done, there is actually an article on it. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Meanwhile, the towns of Oliver and Osoyoos are home to the Oliver Airport and Osoyoos Airport; the former is situated in Oliver, while the latter is based in Osoyoos." This sentence repeats itself, there is no need for the bit after the semi-colon.
- Removed. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is an "unincorporated community"?
- A place that has not been "incorporated" as a city, town, district, village, etc. I have added a link for now. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it appropriate to have an External links section for a Commons box and a Google maps/Bing maps box? (I genuinely don't know, but it looks odd to me.)
- It is the general convention to provide links to Wikimedia Commons in the section, same goes for those boxes, another editor suggested them. They are external links, so... TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias talk 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. TBrandley (what's up) 22:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support good work. Harrias talk 16:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feels like cricket is taking over FLC right now, but that seems to be the way it goes from time to time. TRM has another, similar FLC running right now, which currently has three supports so he feels able to nominate this one. Zia Khan has done good work tidying it up as well, hence the co-nomination. We both look forward to the scrutiny of the community, and as ever thank you all for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you The Rambling Man, for considering me as co-nominator. I'll try my best to help you taking the list to FL status. Thanks again! Zia Khan 22:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "De Villiers' ODI debut came in February 2005..." Would prefer was to be used instead of came
- Done.
- "De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket, in 58 balls, when he hit an unbeaten 102 against India in..." Think this could be revised perhaps " De Villiers has scored the seventh-fastest century in ODI cricket; he hit an unbeaten 102 against India off 58 balls..."?
- Done.
- "in that format" -> in the format
- Done.
- Seems to be a discrepancy with the strike rate when sorting by score on the ODI table. You have two scores of he same value, 102 has the highest striker at the top, while 107 has the lowest one at the top. I'm not too sure which way round it's should be, but it should be consistent either way.
- This is not strike rate, this is not out (102* is better than 102, same for 107)
- The balls column doesn't sort correctly
- Done. Zia Khan 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NapHit (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Small typo at the start of the sentence which follows "...this remains his highest ODI score." in the third paragraph. Other than that, very good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Zia Khan 18:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Quite picky on my part, but "man of the match" is hyphenated in the lead but not the key. I'm not sure myself which way it should be, but this should be made consistent.Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- In the lead its "man-of-the-match performance" but in the Key it is used as a noun. Zia Khan 15:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Mild oppose
Alright, I was a little confused over the usage of double-dagger in this list. In other lists it's the other way around. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vesantry, anything more? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
—Vensatry (Ping me) 04:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – No issues for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...One Day International (ODI) and T20I teams" Why is ODI expanded on this first use, but T20I is merely linked?
- "He made his first Test century the following month, scoring his debut century.." "first Test century", "debut century" is unnecessary repetition.
- Could the first paragraph be expanded to mention his other double century against India in April 2008? Harrias talk 17:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for your comments Harrias! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, no problem, good work. Harrias talk 18:01, 17 February 2013 (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. — ΛΧΣ21 16:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 22:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past few months and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
Comments from Crisco 1492
- The inaugural winner was Alvin Dark. - Why did he get it?
- I've checked all the free Google News archive articles, but none of them explain why Dark won the award. I was basing the "inaugural winner sentence" off the Hutch Award FL, which bluntly states the Mick won it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything on the award's site? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, nothing much. It just states he was a PDT member at LSU. And the site only delves into specific details for the last seven winners. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why no winner for 2012? When is the winner selected?
- According to Baseball Almanac, the 2012 winner will be announced in June 2013. However, the award date changes frequently, as Derek Jeter won the 2010 award in January 2011. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look fine (no action required)
- Looks very solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your feedback Crisco! Cheers. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images, looks solid enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Arsenikk
- Perhaps elaborate a bit more on what is meant by "the character and integrity of Lou Gehrig". From what I read further down in the lead it seems that this is a award for off-field philanthropic work. I would be nice if the article was a bit more specific about the criteria or what is emphasized in selection.
Otherwise I don't see anything else to pick on. Arsenikk (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the award's website itself is pretty vague on what the criteria is. It only stipulates a player who "best exemplifies the spirit and character" of Gehrig "both on and off the field". —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent list. Arsenikk (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (after a minor copyedit). Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 21:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Coal town guy 06:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first nomination of anything on Wikipedia. My area of interest and contributiuons has been unincorporated communities within WV, and certainly KY, PA, VA etc etc. However, having a FL list for WV counties is paramount for WV history and the associated portals throughout Wikipedia. All data is accurate and the current list represents substantial changes in quality and accuracyCoal town guy (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Congratulations on your first nomination! I can tell you've put a lot of work into this list. I was just wondering if you've had a look at other counties lists, such as Florida and Utah? I think consistency is usually good with these types of articles, and it wouldn't be too much work to convert some of your sections into four lead paragraphs. Just my two cents though; I'll let others weigh in. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that alot, believe it or not. In this instance I wanted to use seperate paragrapha because of the concepts. Example If I said Rights and Functions, I better have 2+ paragraphs, at least, that was my thinking. VERY much appreciate the comment. I did however take heed of your advice and others who helped. I used the more recent FL county lists as a template. I was totally blown away by New Jersey. EGAD....However, FL, MA, NJ, and KY each had pieces that really make a county list function well. Coal town guy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I removed the headersCoal town guy (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that alot, believe it or not. In this instance I wanted to use seperate paragrapha because of the concepts. Example If I said Rights and Functions, I better have 2+ paragraphs, at least, that was my thinking. VERY much appreciate the comment. I did however take heed of your advice and others who helped. I used the more recent FL county lists as a template. I was totally blown away by New Jersey. EGAD....However, FL, MA, NJ, and KY each had pieces that really make a county list function well. Coal town guy (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments welcome!
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Orlady
|
|---|
|
- Support - I believe this list now meets the all FL criteria. I have just one small question: What is the reason for including the list of state symbols as a "see also" item? I couldn't figure out the value it's supposed to add. If I were linking any "see also" items for this list, it would be the lists of cities, towns, and villages (which lists aren't anywhere near good as either this one or the list of state symbols). --Orlady (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and THANKS for Support. I have added List of WV Governors (a FL) and List of National Historic places in WV. The State symbols list was removedCoal town guy (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I concur with Orlady that this list now meets all the featured list criteria following the edits by Coal town guy and those made by the editors addressing all the issues and comments raised above. Coal town guy did an extraordinary job framing the importance of counties in the governance of West Virginia in addition to the origins of their nomenclature and associated geospatial data. -- Caponer (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why two different references to Bakestress and Rice? Why not make life a little simpler by removing the page number for the references, implementing the <ref name> feature, and citing individual pages with {{rp}} after the </ref>? Our citation guidelines permit both styles (although of course you can't use both in the same page), so there's absolutely no reason for you to do this if you don't want to. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer The data cited was either a span of pages, or on a specific page. I chose that specific style, both could be done. The page was submitted to GOCE and was reviewed twice. No preference for citation were stated. As to Rice and Bastress, Bastress is far better at the specific code and historic dates for the WV constitution, Rice is better at its interpretation. Both are effective, however for the point being made, I chose those references specifically. Does that address your concern? If not, let me know Coal town guy (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, that's not what I meant; I wasn't attempting to question your use of sources. In the first Rice citation, why don't you change <ref> to <ref name=rice> and drop the page number, change the second Rice citation to <ref name=rice /> (deleting everything else from that citation), and then append {{rp|153}} to the first one and {{rp|247}} to the second? And why don't you do something comparable to the Bastress? Of course, "I don't feel like it" is fine; I just thought you might find it more convenient. See what I've done with citation #2 at Mechanicsburg United Methodist Church for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I found the accepted style I used to be easier.......and yes, I didnt feel like it might be a good part of that. used what I thought to be an easier style for the fact that the list in the form I found it required ALOT of content and work, an easier and accepted ref style made it better for me at least. I do however appreciate the info on another form of accepted refs. Otherwise, if there is something you do not support or do support, let me knowCoal town guy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No complaints; I just wanted to make sure that you used a different style because you wanted to, not because of ignorance. My only substantive question also concerns the citations: on several of them, the end of the citation is a parenthetical statement, like (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) or (WV State Boundaries). What's the point of those? Is it perhaps some note-to-self, which could simply be put in <!-- hidden comments -->? I don't see how they're necessary, but I don't want to remove them if you have a good reason for including them. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The County list page is a great place to show the literature of the state and if a person were inclined to contribute more to a specific county article, they now have a reference, with a parenthetical that would guide them. There are a few County pages I would LOVE to have ANYONE get to and correct a few boundary issues (no finger pointing), a few of the origin issues etc etc. They now have a source should they go to the county list page. Hope this helps as this does not violate a Style rule or guide.Coal town guy (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it did, I wouldn't know about it, since I virtually never read WP:MOS. Thanks for your responses! Sorry for speaking earlier as if you weren't familiar with the ref name idea; I completely overlooked the fact that you're using ref name for other citations. I only meant to introduce the rp template, and with both it and the parentheticals I only was commenting, not objecting to the current format. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No apology is required at all. This is a learning experience for myself and really what a FL should be at this point on wikipedia. I cant learn these things unless, others show me, and point them out, and everyone here has in a very positive mmanner. Hope you support this FLC. I would not have it here unless you and many others pointed me in a constructive directionCoal town guy (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it did, I wouldn't know about it, since I virtually never read WP:MOS. Thanks for your responses! Sorry for speaking earlier as if you weren't familiar with the ref name idea; I completely overlooked the fact that you're using ref name for other citations. I only meant to introduce the rp template, and with both it and the parentheticals I only was commenting, not objecting to the current format. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The County list page is a great place to show the literature of the state and if a person were inclined to contribute more to a specific county article, they now have a reference, with a parenthetical that would guide them. There are a few County pages I would LOVE to have ANYONE get to and correct a few boundary issues (no finger pointing), a few of the origin issues etc etc. They now have a source should they go to the county list page. Hope this helps as this does not violate a Style rule or guide.Coal town guy (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No complaints; I just wanted to make sure that you used a different style because you wanted to, not because of ignorance. My only substantive question also concerns the citations: on several of them, the end of the citation is a parenthetical statement, like (WV County Founding Dates and Etymology) or (WV State Boundaries). What's the point of those? Is it perhaps some note-to-self, which could simply be put in <!-- hidden comments -->? I don't see how they're necessary, but I don't want to remove them if you have a good reason for including them. Nyttend (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In all honesty, I found the accepted style I used to be easier.......and yes, I didnt feel like it might be a good part of that. used what I thought to be an easier style for the fact that the list in the form I found it required ALOT of content and work, an easier and accepted ref style made it better for me at least. I do however appreciate the info on another form of accepted refs. Otherwise, if there is something you do not support or do support, let me knowCoal town guy (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, that's not what I meant; I wasn't attempting to question your use of sources. In the first Rice citation, why don't you change <ref> to <ref name=rice> and drop the page number, change the second Rice citation to <ref name=rice /> (deleting everything else from that citation), and then append {{rp|153}} to the first one and {{rp|247}} to the second? And why don't you do something comparable to the Bastress? Of course, "I don't feel like it" is fine; I just thought you might find it more convenient. See what I've done with citation #2 at Mechanicsburg United Methodist Church for an example. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer The data cited was either a span of pages, or on a specific page. I chose that specific style, both could be done. The page was submitted to GOCE and was reviewed twice. No preference for citation were stated. As to Rice and Bastress, Bastress is far better at the specific code and historic dates for the WV constitution, Rice is better at its interpretation. Both are effective, however for the point being made, I chose those references specifically. Does that address your concern? If not, let me know Coal town guy (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Orlady (part 2)
|
|---|
|
Support I reviewed this earlier and have just re-read it. It has been greatly improved and I find it now meets the FLC criteria. I have one suggestion - "Wyoming" is a Lenape (Delaware) word, which this reference (which is already cited in the article) confirms. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thanks for support added Lenape prefix, many thanks for your help in this effort!Coal town guy (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Overall, a great list. I especially admire the in-depth information of county powers and organization. Great work. Jujutacular (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC) All Items Done and Many thanks Hope I can count on your supportCoal town guy (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Looks good! Thank you for the quick response to my comments. Jujutacular (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to you for taking the time. This has been a learning process for certainCoal town guy (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the table should at least include a caption per WP:ACCESS, row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex. Why are the FIPS codes not sorted, ie some numbers are missing (2, 4, 6). Were there any former counties? Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions I do not at all understand what you mean per tainig to tables. When you say you want a Caption and not a header I do not understand....How is this done. I have looked at WP:ACCESS and have no idea what to do, can you please help?
- Done with FIPSThe FIPS codes are the exact FIPS code for each county that is provided for WV. There are no missing counties there are other states which also have gaps in the FIPS codes, New Jersey, as an example. The numbering is not always a sequence. The current values are sorted properly. No data is missingCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at all County FL lists, I am not able to see a caption on any of these at all, ANY help would be wonderfulCoal town guy (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done but need help added a table caption and it does not display. I also looked at every county list for the United States, none have a caption. Please help me out hereCoal town guy (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The template {{Countytabletop}} doesn't have the facility to include a caption (although I'd like to see it edited to add this feature - it just needs a line something like
{{#if:{{{caption|}}|{{!}}+{{{caption|}}} }}). A caption confers the advantage that it makes the table self-contained for re-use and it allows some screen readers for visually impaired visitors to navigate directly to the table. However, the consensus has been that tables which are placed immediately below a heading gain sufficiently little benefit from a caption that we don't insist on having them. The reason is that most screen readers can jump to a heading just as easily as to a table caption, so the caption is somewhat redundant in those circumstances. The Countytabletop template correctly marks up its headers as table headers with a scope of "col", but I'd also like to see the template {{Countyrow}} mark up the name of the county as a table header with a scope of "row", as that would improve the ability of some screen readers to use the name of the county to identify the row when a screen reader user is navigating around the table. - In brief: there's not much you can do to improve the accessibility further without modifying templates that are used in 40+ other articles, and that will often require forging a consensus with the editors of those other articles. For now, the list is reasonably accessible, imho, although it could be improved. I'd certainly support it as a FL. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the info, feel free to add your support, it is always appreciatedCoal town guy (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The template {{Countytabletop}} doesn't have the facility to include a caption (although I'd like to see it edited to add this feature - it just needs a line something like
- Done but need help added a table caption and it does not display. I also looked at every county list for the United States, none have a caption. Please help me out hereCoal town guy (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at all County FL lists, I am not able to see a caption on any of these at all, ANY help would be wonderfulCoal town guy (talk) 14:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with FIPSThe FIPS codes are the exact FIPS code for each county that is provided for WV. There are no missing counties there are other states which also have gaps in the FIPS codes, New Jersey, as an example. The numbering is not always a sequence. The current values are sorted properly. No data is missingCoal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)Coal town guy (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also unsure of what you mean by "row headers are objectionable since the table is not complex". If you are referring to the column headings, these are absolutely necessary in order to identify the information. Jujutacular (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean the row headers. The table does not need them if it has no complex features. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but noticed two minor problems.
- It says "Reforming public education became a county function in 1933. In May 1933, a county unit plan was adopted. Under this plan, the state's 398 school districts were consolidated into 55 county school systems." but it is unclear if education itself is currently a function of counties?
- I have a problem with sentence: "This enabled public schools to be funded more economically and saved West Virginia millions of dollars". This looks like an opinion not a fact, but it is stated as a fact. It should be probably attributed to the authors of the book to make it clear that it is their opinion.
- Ruslik_Zero 16:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and thanks for support. I added the word current to clarify that this practice continues today. As to the saving mllions of dollars, it is part and parcel of the Rice source on page 247, hence why I places the ref tag there. Many thanks for the supportCoal town guy (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 23:01, 15 February 2013 [12].
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
H. C. McNeile is one of the forgotten giants of the golden age of British detective fiction, although he is now more likely to be remembered for the rather odious views on race and anti-Semitism he included in his stories from time to time. Best known for his Bulldog Drummond stories, McNeile created the forerunner to later thriller heroes—Drummond was both a proto-Bond and Biggles—but he also wrote extensively about the First World War, while serving on the front line. He managed to write 80 short stories while serving on the Western Front and continued writing after the war. - SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images. Can't see any more issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the third table, the Ref column shouldn't be sortable.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well spotted! Now sorted. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made a small copy edit to the lead as it seemed a bit clunky due to a series of full stops. I merged one and deleted "these were then collected together." It seemed a bit redundant when the sentence goes onto say "and published as collections through Hodder & Stoughton." Feel free to revert if you don't agree. The article is in great shape! -- CassiantoTalk 13:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your edit is great - many thanks for the tweak and the support: both are much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 04:34, 15 February 2013 [13].
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because it's a good look at film producers from the Indies, a topic I'm trying to make featured. No images because I haven't found any free ones of those involved. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why limit the article to 1926 to 1949? I understand that Indonesia is not exactly the same as Dutch East Indies, but I wouldn't think producers must be segregated by pre- or post-independece. The names in Category:Indonesian film producers would be a good addition to this list. Reywas92Talk 19:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because a) it was not the same political body, b) as noted at Darah dan Doa, Indonesians have generally not considered films from the Indies truly "Indonesian" films, and c) we already have List of films of the Dutch East Indies and List of film directors of the Dutch East Indies; this is meant as a complement to them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice list. Here are some comments you may disagree with.
- "Twenty-two people are recorded as having produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," I would write "Twenty-two people are believed to have produced fictional films in the Dutch East Indies between 1926," although I know that weasel words are not permitted, still I prefer such wordings in this case
- "All were men; the first female film producer in Indonesia, Ratna Asmara, produced her first film in 1953.[3]" - suggest "Among identified film producers from the Dutch Indies, all were men except at least one woman, Ratna Asmara, who has produced her first film in 1953"--Tomcat (7) 18:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and support. "Believed" sounds less encyclopedic than "recorded" (especially since they are on record) and 1953 was after the Dutch East Indies was dissolved, so Ratna should not be counted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support in principle with some comments. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 07:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
- Hmm... Good point. He was likely the producer of Eulis Atjih in 1927, but I don't have a source to confirm this. Good catch, reworded until I can confirm that he was the producer of Eulis Atjih. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Altogether they produced some 93 films in this period..." Is it a valid corollary to say then that a total of 93 fictional films were produced in the Indies between 1926 and 1949? If not, perhaps this requires rewording.
- The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cameraman seems to have been "operator", but none of the sources have any more. Good wording, changing... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A possible alternative is "Altogether they are credited for 93 of all known films produced in the Indies..." This should also provide some connectivity between the producer/director lists and the film list, which seems to be missing at the moment. Out of curiosity, do we know the original terms (in Dutch, etc.) used to describe these people's roles? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 08:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The recorded producers did, although (as visible at List of films of the Dutch East Indies) some 112 fictional films were produced altogether. Any suggestions for alternatives? The already-featured list of film directors of the Dutch East Indies uses the above wording. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention G. Kruger as one of the first producers, but his debut film is 1930, which is later than a number of other producers. Is this assertion based on the approximate date when he started working on Karnadi Anemer Bangkong?
| Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – List meets all 6 criteria. Good work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 18:11, 14 February 2013 [14].
- Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have improved this article considerably and I think it meets all FA-criteria. The list includes all NFL champions and runner-ups prior to the league's merger with the American Football League in 1970. I think this will be an excellent compliment to the companion List of Super Bowl champions article, also an FA. Toa Nidhiki05 02:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments a few basic things, not sure this is ready quite yet....:
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support, assuming red and blue meets WP:ACCESS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:ACCESS:
Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.
- I can't see any link issues, but I can see how there could be issues with them. I've replaced it with a lighter color that shows the link more clearly. Toa Nidhiki05 02:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Resolute
That's about all I got. Cheers! Resolute 00:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Also, I am offering this up only for your consideration: List of Stanley Cup champions uses parentheticals for such denotions. i.e.: (WC) That may be easier for a reader to note what conference/division the teams were members of than six obscure symbols. Feel free to disregard this suggestion if you dislike that format.
- I would not mind switching to that, but the NFL only has one article for the divisions/conferences, not two, so there would not be a unique. I used the symbols mainly because that is what is used on the Super Bowl champions article, or something similar. Toa Nidhiki05 01:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. You could link the relevant article in the key, leaving the (ED), (AC), etc. notes unlinked in the table itself. However, I do agree that this list should be relatively consistent with the Super Bowl article, therefore this may be something worth discussing internally to the NFL project, if you feel it valuable. Resolute 03:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it as too big of a deal, but I will either check with the group to see if it is fine or boldly do it myself. Toa Nidhiki05 21:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, no problem. As I said, I offer that only as a suggestion. Therefore...
- Support. My concerns have been addressed. Resolute 00:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments by Arsenikk
|
- Support nice work! Arsenikk (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was pomoted by Hahc21 02:54, 14 February 2013 [15].
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all the Grade I listed churches in the country of Cumbria. Its style and format follow the recently promoted Grade I listed churches in Lancashire and the previous similar lists. The text has been copyedited. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Excellent list, the usual great work by Peter! NapHit (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Another excellent list from Dr Vardy! I do have a few comments.- I think the lead might be improved with a little more detail on the churches. The second paragraph feels a little slight. Is there any more that can be added about the architecture of the non-Anglo-Saxon churches? Is there an unusually large amount of Norman architecture for the NW? St Martin's Brampton could perhaps be discussed as an unusually late grade I church. Also the Viking material could be discussed.
- Fair comment. I have expanded the second paragraph (not too much I hope), addressing these points, and added a little about the Viking material in the last paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the national park and the current industry of tourism affect the grade-I-listed churches? Are any of them significant tourist attractions? How many fall within the park?
- Only 10 out of about 50 churches are actually within the National Park, and most of these are located around the periphery. Considering the antiquity of almost all the churches, and the fact that tourism only started with the Romantic movement in the 18th century, I am not sure that this is particularly relevant to the architecture. So why do I include this in the lead: mainly to give a snapshot of what the county is like to the reader unfamiliar with it, and to give consistency with the other related FLs. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. I suppose international readers won't have any clue that the Lake District is in Cumbria, and are more likely to have heard of the former. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason the date column was removed? I've always found it very useful, even if the date for such churches can be hard to determine.
- Not only can the date be difficult to determine, I consider that a date column can be confusing. What date do you choose? The date of foundation, the date of earliest surviving material, the date of the major part of the fabric, the date of a major rebuilding or restoration? The relevant dates are included in the Notes column, with a discussion about their importance where necessary. IMO this is a better way to deal with dates than to have a potentially misleading extra column. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd tend to prefer it using probably date of earliest surviving material, with a footnote perhaps -- I generally sort these types of list into date order before reading -- but I understand the reasoning for exclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- St Martin's, Bowness-on-Windermere: 'Painted on the internal walls are tests dating from the 16th century' -- what are tests, in this context? Should it be texts?
- St Mungo's, Bromfield: How does the chantry chapel of St George relate to the main church?
- St Ninian's, Brougham: What is the original date?
- St Oswald's, Grasmere: 'Battered' is obviously a technical term; can any article that explains it be linked? Otherwise it might be simpler just to write inward-sloping walls.
- St Mary's, Lanercost: What is the date of the original priory?
- St Andrew's Church, Sedbergh: This description is shorter than most of the others; can anything else be added?
- I have dealt with the above in the relevant Notes sections. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still doing some minor copy edits on the remainder of the table so I might have some more queries once I've finished.Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and advice. I think I have addressed all the points you raised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to support. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments very good indeed, a couple of minor things from me....
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support another excellent list from Peter, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything (including File: pages) looks good. Will probably support after I've found time to examine the prose a bit closer.Goodraise 23:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Image review. No concerns. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "all major architectural styles except Modernism can be found in the county's Grade I listed churches." - Would like to see a citation here.
- This is a summary drawn from the items in the list, which I think is valid in the lead. I have no source for this to provide a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say I agree. I see it as original research. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Research???? OK it's gone. A pity because I thought it added value and interest to the lead. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could word it differently, in a way that doesn't go beyond what the sources say? By simply removing it, you've broken the connection to the next sentence. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot think of a way of saying what I said without a similar objection being raised. Connection between the sentences altered. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A large number of churches" - Could be less vague and would benefit from a citation.
- Changed to "Many of the churches", although I am not sure that this is an improvement. Once again I have no source for a citation. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having trouble figuring out the pattern behind your comma usage. Sometimes you appear to be using serial commas, sometimes not. Sometimes you appear to be placing commas after disambiguating locations, sometimes not. You're not placing the commas to accommodate the citations, are you?
"The most modern church in the list is St Martin, Brampton," - Suggest using listed instead.- That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That would subtly change the meaning, as there are other grades of listing besides Grade I. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"was built in 1874–78" - "was built from 1874 to 1878" - See MOS:YEAR. Multiple occurrences.- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that "between 1874 and 1878" is better and have made the change. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, in isn't actually part of the date range, so MOS:YEAR#5 doesn't apply. I don't see any danger with "built from" though. Who would come to believe a church was made of years? Still, point taken, "between 1874 and 1878" would probably be better. I'm uncomfortable with the "in 1874–78" construct because I'd read it as "in 1874 to 78", which sounds awkward to me. I'd be fine with it, if it was "in 1874–75". In any case, I won't insist on the change if I'm the only one seeing merit in it. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be that you need to refresh your understanding of MOS:YEAR. In addition, to say that something was "built from" implies that those are its constituent parts. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"designed by Philip Webb, who used a variety of architectural styles." - "... Webb, using a variety ..." would make it clear that Webb used multiple styles on this church.- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the lead as adequately summarizing the article, as long as it doesn't mention how many items it has.
- Total number of items added, with some amendment to the text. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The tower fell in 1600, destroying the choir and the north transept, which was followed by a fire in 1604." - Awkward. Please reword.- Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing this change in the article. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My edit didn't seem to stick for some reason, done it again. George Ponderevo (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing this change in the article. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded as "... an event that was followed by a fire in 1604". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Norman west doorway, and a Perpendicular east window." - Remove comma for consistency.- Comma removed. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 03:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The nave dates from the same century, the south aisle was added ..." - Comma splice.- Slightly rewritten, but bear in mind that once again this is a comma-separated list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Perpendicular-style windows were inserted in the 16th century, the south porch was added ..." - Comma splice.
- No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See discussion of next item. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a list, the elements of which are separated by commas. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The south aisle was added in about 1200, the chancel was extended ..." - Comma splice.
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I don't understand all this. I hope the nomination does not fail because of a comma or two! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not qute sure now what it is you're objecting to Goodraise. The text now reads:
- "St Michael's has a central tower dating from the 12th century; the nave dates from the same century. The south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century."
- That looks fine to me. Has there perhaps been some rewriting since your original posting? George Ponderevo (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, I would have picked another sentence as an example had I refreshed the page before replying. The current version of this is fine, but the other two remain comma splices to the best of my understanding. I don't claim to be a guru of English grammar, but until someone explains to me how I'm mistaken here, assuming I actually am mistaken, I'll have to continue to object. In "I came. He left. And she stayed", I can replace the second period with a comma without problem, because there's a coordinating conjunction in the form of an and, but if I replace the first period with a comma, I'll have created a comma splice by connecting two independent clauses with a comma. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nave dates from the same century" would appear to be an independent clause to me, just as much as "the south aisle was added in the following century, a north aisle and a south chapel in about 1300, and the chancel in the early 14th century." If they are independent clauses and a comma splice is the joining of two independent clauses by means of a comma, then I don't see how this can not be a comma splice. I'm not seeing one list here, but two, one list, containing one item, "dating to the same century", and one list, containing four items, which were "added". If you could point out where my misunderstanding lies, that would be great. I'm always happy to learn something new. Goodraise 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again it's a list, not a comma splice. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This is aA long narrow church built in the 12th and 13th centuries,"
- This makes it into a phrase rather than a sentence. I know that the notes in some lists are in phrases rather than in sentences, but I have tried to use sentences throughout. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, but it still seems clumsy to me to start an item's description with "This is a". How about "This long narrow church was built in the 12th and 13th centuries, with later alterations"? Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't really see the need, but done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and a south doorway. A. above whichthe doorway is a carved stone from the early 12th century depictings two knights on horseback." - A suggestion.- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work either, as it's saying that the early 12th century is above the doorway. Changed to "An early 12th-century carved stone above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback". George Ponderevo (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, how about "A carved stone from the early 12th century above the doorway depicts two knights on horseback"? Just to move the two occurrences of doorway further apart. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't really work, as it would make it seem that the carved stone is above the doorway and the windows. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The northeast vestry was built in 1911 by W. L. Dolman, whoandconverted it into a chapelby the same architectin 1922." - Another suggestion.- Seems reasonable, done. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and was executed by George Jack to Webb's design" - Not sure what this means. Who designed the top stage, Jack or Webb?- "to" changed to "following". Does that clarify? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Goodraise 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the delay in responding, but I have been away. Thanks for the comments, and to George Ponderevo for the help provided. I think that all the points raised have been addressed, and await any further comments. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The top stage of the tower, featuring a saddleback roof with a lead spirelet, was added in 1906 by George Jack, following Webb's design." - Another suggestion."It was suppressed at the time of the dissolution of the monasteries, andwasrestored in 1925.""The church is now redundant andisin the care of the Churches Conservation Trust."
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly required, but I'd like to see the list comply with WP:NOPIPEDLINK (e.g.[[English Gothic architecture#Decorated Gothic]]).
- Amended. Did not know this is "allowed" - thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the roofs
arein green slate." "The churchIt is constructed in roughcast stone with a slate roof." - Avoid repetition."Inside the church is a three-sided altar rail, and a three-decker pulpit." - Remove comma."south Norman doorway" - Awkward. Please reword."In the porch are part of a 10th-century cross-shaft decorated with carvings of beasts, and a grave-cover, possibly from the 11th century; outside the church is a 10th-century hogback stone." - Why use a semi-colon here instead of a period?"One of the monuments is by Francis Leggatt Chantrey." - What monuments?
- Above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not having completed this review yet. Reviewing prose is a very time consuming activity for me. I'll try to get through the remaining items quickly. Goodraise 20:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"This has been a Christian site since the 8th century..." - Considering that this is a list of churches and not a list of sites, I'm sure this can be said differently."The church was remodelled and extended in 1896–99 by C. J. Ferguson." - "between 1896 and 1899"?Not quite sure what a "blocked south Norman doorway" is. Could you put that differently?"consists of two naves,beingwhich were doubled in size between 1490 and 1500"
- Above fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Sandys Chapel" - Might there be an apostrophe missing?
- No, the surname was Sandys. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"andithas a green slate roof.""four bay nave"/"four-bay nave" - Consistency please."Norman features include three doorways, and the north arcade." - Why's there a comma here?
- All the above dealt with, other than the Sandys chapel. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost through. Goodraise 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the building of which started in about 1175–80" - This again. Reading it aloud, I stumble over the date format."It was restored in 1847–49" - "between 1847 and 1849"?"Stained glass in the north aisle windows" - "The stained glass in the north aisle windows"?"The nave and chancel of Holy Trinity date from the late 12th century; there is a Norman north doorway." - Not seeing the connection here.- "it was restored and extended by Sarah Losh, including adding an extension to the north." - Double exten-, double -ing. Would like to see this worded differently.
- No improvement here. How about "In 1844 Sarah Losh restored the church and extended it to the north"? Or if you want to keep the new bit: "In 1844 Sarah Losh conducted a restoration and extension, which included the building of a chancel at right angles to the north of the nave." Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Inside the church are galleries on three sides carried on Tuscan columns, and paintings on the walls." - I'd put a comma before carried for easier understanding."a north doorway is said to be Norman." - Is there some sort of disagreement about it?"St Michael's ... contains Norman features, including a south doorway, the arcades, and the chancel arch. The font is also Norman." - Why make this two sentences?"In 1720 the body of the church"/"In 1689, the nave ceiling" - Consistent comma placement would be nice."in 1880–82 by John A. Cory, who also added the south porch." - Strong suggestion."was restored in 1880–82 by John A. Cory" - "between 1880 and 1882"?"Later alterations and additionshaveresulted in the presence of Early English and Perpendicular features.""The church has a cruciform plan, with a piscina in each transept." - Remove comma for consistency."Built in 1752–73, this church" - "between 1752 and 1773"?"In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford" - "Between 1655 and 1666"?
- All the above dealt with. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1655–66, Lady Anne Clifford paid for the building of the northeast chapel and the rebuilding of the chancel." - "When she arrived in 1667 to see what she had paid for, she found nothing had actually been done and nobody knew where her money had gone." Can we reword this?
- I don't understand this. Where did that second quote come from?
- The second quote was my apparently failed attempt at humorously pointing out that the first quote doesn't say that these works were actually undertaken. Not a big deal, but why not make things as clear as possible? Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh! Reworded. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I'm finally through. Goodraise 00:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete revisit.Goodraise 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Revisited. Goodraise 07:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Hahc21 20:18, 12 February 2013 [16].
- Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is of sufficient quality. I believe that this article meets the necessary FL criteria, and I welcome any comments about ways in which it could be improved. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 04:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comments
A couple of minor copy edits made - please feel free to revert if you disagree with them.
Very minor points indeed and good work. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support All good: nice work! - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few minor comments
- I would remove the redirect (HMV -> [[HMV Group|HMV]])
- Okay. But why?
- The redirect might get turned into a dab page somewhere down the road. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough then. Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so I understand it, currently the list is compiled from 30 sources, but in the past this number has included 60? This might be made a little clear in the lead. Ruby 2010/2013 01:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it's a little confusing. From what I can tell, the poll has only ever been compiled each year using about 30-35 sources, but obviously over the years the sources have changed. As of last year, more than 60 different listings have, at some point, contributed towards the Poll of Polls. Which part of the lead do you think needs to be changed to make this clearer?
- Thank you very much for the review, Ruby! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no reason why this list should be barred from promotion. Prose is good and the content seems solid. Ruby 2010/2013 19:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose and images, looks like a good list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013 [17].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) and User:Ruby2010 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby2010 and I are nominating this list of recordings by Fiona Apple for featured list because we believe it meets criteria and closely resembles similar lists of this standard: Adele, Rihanna, etc. We believe the list is complete and we are happy to address any concerns that may arise during the course of this FLC process. Thanks so much for your time. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Aaron |
|---|
Resolved comments by Aaron
— AARON • TALK 19:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - I don't see why this shouldn't be promoted. — AARON • TALK 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments Looks pretty good to me, I just have a few points:.
Good work, in all. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- My main concern is the number of links, particularly in the third paragraph. Certain terms (like single, lead single, cover version, studio album, compilation album and soundtrack) are probably familiar to a reader that they needn't be linked to.
- I disagree. I think these links are important and it should be assumed people know the meaning of these terms. Also, neither reviewer above mentioned this concern. Please let me know if you feel strongly enough that you would not support the promotion of this list without specifically addressing this concern. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that the number of links is consistent, I'm just concerned that there are a few too many of them – it looks like nearly a third of the words in the lead are links. But, as I've said, this isn't necessarily something that I'd oppose over. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are an inordinate amount of links there. The first paragraph contains 17 links, the second para has 15, and the third has 18. I think we've maintained a good blue consistency. Also, I can't think which links we would trim out (all seem necessary to readers). Ruby 2010/2013 21:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not something I'd oppose over, it just seems like an awful lot of blue in paragraph three. It looks to me like about a third of the words in that paragraph are links. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead originally said "Sony released" rather than "Sony produced". I can see that you changed it to avoid repetition of "released", but, when referring to a single, "produced" would suggest that Sony actually had a hand in its music production, which presumably wasn't the case. Is there another less ambiguous word that could be used instead? A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed back to "released". I am not particularly bothered by the word redundancy, but also would not be opposed to a more generic term. Distributed? --Another Believer (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Status:
— Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support. Great work! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, great use of citations, good structure, nice background info and introduction material, appreciate the usage of free-use media files. — Cirt (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments –
- What makes TwentyFourBit (refs 28, 38, and 42) a reliable source?
- This sounds good to me, but perhaps others would disagree. Also, I don't think the information taken from these sources is particularly controversial or questionable. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes The Round Table (ref 44) reliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know nothing about The Round Table except that, in this case, the two sources used to verify "Still I" are the only two I can find. Here is the site's "About Us" section with editor profiles. I assumed a less-than-ideal source was better than none at all. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The song appears on the artist's official myspace page, which is why I could consider it reliable. I will leave the song in the table unless consensus says the source is considered unreliable. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the performer's official page, I suppose it can be considered somewhat reliable like someone's Twitter account would be, although I don't like the use of such sources myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the source in question. The myspace reference remains at the moment, so I will keep the song in the table accordingly. If we believe myspace is not reliable, I can remove the song altogether. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If there's no truly reliable source for a fact, it's better to not include it at all. I'm sure reviewers will understand if a fact with reliable sourcing issues is removed, and will not hold it against the list on comprehensiveness grounds. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 10 February 2013 [18].
- Nominator(s): Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because because I feel it meets the FL criteria and follows a similar design to current FLs such as List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. The list is also complete and as Hong Kong don't play at this level anymore, it is unlikely to change in the near future. It was previously a featured list just over four years ago and was on my radar early in 2012 to promote to FL, but time never permitted me to complete the nomination. Feedback most welcome! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "A ODI differs" should be An ODI -
Done - "Hong Kong have never gained ODI status in their own right, but have been accorded ODI status twice on a temporary basis for participation in the Asia Cup, in which the matches played held ODI status." Think this could do with a reference.
Comment: - If only I could find one! Looked long and hard, with no luck thus far. - Is the name sorting correctly? It appears to be a cross between first and last name Comment: Pakistani players are generally sorted by first name, see here and per a discussion here. Nine of Hong Kong's squad alone in the 2008 Asian Cup were born in Pakistan.
NapHit (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
|
| Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Zia Khan 23:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – Good work! Zia Khan 15:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- For the request for a reference for the part saying they were afforded temporary ODI status, as big as the internet is, I can find no source for that. I don't have either the 2007 or 2009 Wisden Almanack, so perhaps it is mentioned in there somewhere. For now I have included a note explaining why they were given temporary ODI status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support – Looks good for me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"playing two matches against Pakistan and India. , though struggling...". Period should be gone, and the comma should be moved to before the reference. How did three supporters miss something like this? Done - Yes, how did we miss that! That's what this process is for :)"but have qualified for the 2014 World Cup Qualifier, where qualification...". Too much qualifying in this sentence. Done - Lost one
Giants2008 (Talk) 21:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 10 February 2013 [19].
- Nominator(s): Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As the reviewers were so kind to my last attempt, I thought I'd submit this third and final section of the complete list while my luck still holds (hopefully). It has the same structure as the previous one, and comments made at that FLC have been actioned at this list as well. And there's a few more pictures on this one. All constructive comments welcome... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- The position column should really sort by position, e.g. GK to FW, instead of the current alphabetic method NapHit (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Well I thought it was the done thing, as the equivalent lists for Man Utd and Liverpool use this method. Also as the positions key list the positions in relation to their position on the pitch, so to me it would make sense to reflect this in the column. I think a few more opinions are needed on this, before, as you say, you introduce 350+ sort templates. NapHit (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you could explain why it needs sorting in that order? I can't think of any particular reason why the reader sorting that column would expect the contents to appear in back-to-front order. Wouldn't they just be wanting all the players with each position to sort together? I'm not being awkward, and am quite happy to make the change if there's a good and generally accepted reason for it, but am reluctant to introduce 350+ extra template calls to an already large article if it's just personal taste.
- Thank you for your comments. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support a typically high quality nomination and my comments (where actually helpful) addressed nicely. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
;Comments from Arsenikk
Excellent list and I'll be happy to support once the two issues are resolved. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice job. Arsenikk (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 21:11, 10 February 2013 [20].
- Nominator(s): I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because having extensively redeveloped the tables and prose, I feel that it meets the FLC criteria. Any criticism would be helpful if it improves the page. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 17:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Holiday56 (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. Holiday56 (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support - Looks solid. Image could be better, but if its all we've got it's all we've got. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hopefully, I've addressed all of your comments satisfactorily. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments –
"The critical success of the EP and extensive touring brought the group to the attention of Columbia Records, which signed the group in 2006." Don't care for the redundant use of "group" here; try revising this to have only one usage.
- Done Removed the second "group". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Similar issue in "The album reached number 38 on the US Billboard 200, and reached...". The second "reached" isn't needed at all in this sentence.Giants2008 (Talk) 19:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Removed the second "reached". I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 19:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ21 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 08:30, 7 February 2013 [21].
- Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have done all that I have seen in the other "(School name) in the NFL Draft" pages, but with the North Carolina data. I've referenced all of the awards and super bowls, along with most of the points of contention I believe. Go Heels! Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 01:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments by Ravendrop |
|---|
*A Few Random Comments:
|
- Support Looks good. Ravendrop 02:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose many comments despite the above early friendly supports, this is just a quick sample of comments in a five minute review...
That's a start. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
'Comments
NapHit (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support NapHit (talk) 01:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look okay (no action required)
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
*
|
- Neutral until a third opinion is given about names. Also, I do not appreciate being called "kid". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Try here perhaps? Goodraise 05:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well okay so keep the linking it is then? Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 03:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Third opinion: Taken literally, WP:REPEATLINK presently allows each target to be linked only once from within a table. However, the main argument against linking everything possible is to not take away the readers' attention from less numerous but equally or even more relevant links. I'm not seeing that problem in this article. So in my opinion, the convenience provided by these additional links slightly outweighs the aesthetic displeasure their presence causes. An unorthodox solution would be to color all but the first links black without actually delinking the teams. Or you could simply make the table sortable. Goodraise 06:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the list on prose and images. Still not wild about the linking, but the MOS doesn't proscribe any particular method for lists — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Are all the players who have played in the NFL/AFL linked, or just the ones that currently have articles? Wizardman 18:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NGRIDIRON they are almost certainly notable if they played at least one game and thus could be linked — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't have to be linked and personally a ton of red links are annoying to see on the page, so I'm going to pass on linking those without pages that have played games.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 12:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd much prefer the links added but it's no big deal. By the way Eric Blount needs to be linked, since he's not. That's basically why I'm pushing for the links, since they'll be filled in one day. Wizardman 03:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 15:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Wizardman 22:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Doneski. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- One more comment, actually, then I can finally support: Refs 3 and 4 are exactly the same: combine them. Wizardman 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just the players that have articles are linked.Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been successful, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013 [22].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another cricket nomination to clog things up! This one is a bit further back in time than most of those coming through recently. Sydney Barnes is almost certainly the best "pace" bowler to have played Test cricket. He completed bamboozled Australian batsmen who otherwise dominated the English bowlers, and had he been a bit more courteous to the amateurs who ran the game, he would surely have played more Test cricket, and hold even more records. As it is, he took 24 five-wicket hauls in just 27 Test matches, and this list is long overdue. It's a while since I've nominated one of these lists, so there might be a few foibles, but as always, I invite all comments and advice. Harrias talk 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support Although the lead is very long, but well-written by Harrias. Zia Khan 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
| Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
—Vensatry (Ping me) 05:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments
|
- Support – Looks good to me. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support as picky as I could be, all comments addressed with a modicum of actual enjoyment! This is what FLC should be about. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looked through it a couple of times and can see no glaring issues! Perhaps the mention of playing Minor Counties cricket could name the county he played for, but once again another fantastic list from Harrias! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"his average places him amongst the top-ten bowlers in Test cricket." "amongst" → "among"? There's also another similar usage later in the lead."After his recall to the England side, he played regularly until the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, as was named by the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack as one of their Cricketers of the Year in 1910." "as" → "and".Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed both; good catches! Harrias talk 07:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013 [23].
The Latin Grammy Award for Best Urban Music Album is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and promotes a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is for vocal or instrumental merengue house, R&B, reggaeton, rap or and hip hop music albums containing at least 51% playing time of newly recorded material. The award was first presented as the Best Rap/Hip-Hop Album until it received its current name, Best Urban Music Album, at the 5th Latin Grammy Awards ceremony in 2004. — Statυs (talk, contribs), — ΛΧΣ21 21:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support Nice list you two. Erick (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Erick! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support Great job! — DivaKnockouts (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks DivaKnockouts! — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk) |
|---|
*Comments from Crisco 1492
|
- Support on prose. Looks solid, table is nice too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much Crisco! We'll talk the suggestion of archiving URLs (I always tell myself I will... but I never end up doing it, LOL). — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a solid work, but I think you could still add another image to ilustrate the winners. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I will add another image then :) — ΛΧΣ21 21:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
Quick comment – All caps in reference 6 need fixing.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 00:08, 2 February 2013 [24].
- Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. This one closely follows format of similar lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
NapHit (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Zia Khan 15:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Good work with the list! Zia Khan 05:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – meets the standards. Zia Khan 17:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments –
Second "the" in "He holds the record for the consecutive appearances as a player in Tests."I see a couple of "till"s in the prose. Not sure whether this is considered formal enough in Australian/British English; if not, there's always "until".No need to capitalize "Tie" in the one note."There have been only two occasions where a Test match ending in a tie." "ending" → "ended".Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Tintin 18:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
For a cricket-aware reader it is misleading usage, because it came three months later in the same season.
This is also unconventional usage. Australia chased and won while the line gives the impression that he batted through the 50 overs
Redundant. See the previous line
He was the MoM
May not be a bad idea to add a note. The match did not have a MoM but Border was a 'player of the final' Tintin 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support No issues from me, looks good. Harrias talk 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hidden category: