Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2009
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 Juliancolton 04:35, 29 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Pedro J. the rookie 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because i think that it can be an FL. Pedro J. the rookie 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, just real quick:
- WP:AVOID using "However". If not, you shouldn't use it to start a sentence.
- I don't think this list is complete. Mila Kunis was nominated for an award for her work in this show
- Do not now, will find out--Pedro J. the rookie 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kunis was nominated for an Annie Award for her voice work on the episode "Barely Legal". Gage (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done
- And that's the only one I know of. Obviously the subject hasn't been researched well enough because the nominator himself admitted he did not know. I am very reticent to support something that may not be complete, but we can't be sure because nobody knows. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for the info of thease artical and i think it is very much done.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reviewing the article, I added one more award to the section, and was not able to find any others to add to the list. It should be complete now. Gage (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does the grey boxes mean? It needs to comply with WP:COLOR, and at the moment I don't think it does.
- the grey boxes sepertate the voice characters.--Pedro J. the rookie 20:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done
Cheers, Matthewedwards : Chat 04:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment
- Your edit links are bunched up. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for that.--Pedro J. the rookie 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but they're still WP:BUNCHed. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it better now.--Pedro J. the rookie 14:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
|---|
|
into 2 sentences or fix the punctuation and transition
done i put refrences on most of the cast exept the normal which has already refrenced.--Pedro J. the rookie 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
will be working on that.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Is that better.--Pedro J. the rookie 21:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - After a thorough copyedit by User:Scapler, article seems to meet the FL criteria. Gage (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll support, but for the long-term benefit of the list, it would probably be good to fill out the character list so every character has an entry, and may be linked to. Geraldk (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put it in the todo list and on the WP:FG things you can do, thanks for the review.--Pedro J. the rookie 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- A few sourcing issues:
- Several unsourced statements in the "Casting changes" section. For example: "It is mentioned in the DVD commentary track that Alazraqui was reluctant to leave the Family Guy series", which commentary?
- done--Pedro J. the rookie 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations seem to be rather random. In some cases they are after the actor, in others after the characters ir statements. Other rows do not have any citations.
- In the row for Butch Hartman, why not give a few examples of characters he has voiced. Also, I'm assuming the first word in "Started in many episodes as various characters" is a typo.
- Done and no there are no examples--Pedro J. the rookie 19:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Regular Cast": "Family Guy has five main cast members, most of whom play several roles on the show." That is a little confusing, because six people are listed below. Why not change it to "At any point in its history, Family Guy has had five main cast members ... "
- What is with the italicized names in the tables?
- Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should add a note that explains it then.
- A note?, how?--Pedro J. the rookie 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed to many trobule.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are names that do not have links in the character list(it is quite a mess), discused with previous editor.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not change the first section to "current cast", and remove everything about Lacey Chabert to the casting changes section?
- Also, perhaps the voice credits for the main cast should be listed to regular characters, and exclude one-timers and impressions.
- can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Mickey McFinnigan or OBrian? It might also be best to exclude characters from other sources (ie. the Kool Aid Man) or impressions (ie. Dick Cheney) and keep it to Family Guy characters.
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- can you be a bit spesific, and there are no onetimers in the list made sure of that.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Casting changes", if Norm MacDonald voiced Death in one episode, wouldn't that make him a guest star rather than a cast member?
- no he was going to continue but could not the one who plays death now is a recurring cast member.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "Recurring cast", isn't it confusing to mention names in prose that are in other sections.
- Can you explain?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that section, people like Lori Alan are mentioned in the prose, but not in the table. At first, I was confused as to why they were not mentioned, then I saw they were in the next section. It might be best to only mention people in their relevant section.
- Done--Pedro J. the rookie 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If memory serves (and I might be completely wrong), but doesn't Family Guy not make any distinction between regular and guest cast in the credits? If so, how did you decide who goes where.
- I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it makes sense. Perhaps you should add a note in the article?
- Done note in posicion.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that in the way that the recurring is the one who apperes but not so offten, the guest is the one who apperes many times but in diffrent episodes of seasons, did you you understand or iam i confusing you?.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list needs a much better definition of what qualifies someone as a "recurring guest star". For example, Drew Barrymore guest starred in a number of episodes but is not listed.
- Done and will expand.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In "recurring voices", a lot of notes could use copyediting, ie. "Guest starred in some episodes from 2001 to 2008" seems rather (for lack of a better term) lazy. Also in that section, some notes have periods while others do not.
- A few sourcing issues:
- It's a pretty good start, but I think the list still has a ways to go. -- Scorpion0422 02:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and looks like you do now a bit FG.--Pedro J. the rookie 19:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did like the show until the post-cancellation seasons started, now I could care less about it. I still catch the occasional new episode. -- Scorpion0422 23:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Flash
|
|---|
|
- Support: My issues have been taken care of and I believe this passes FL criteria. The Flash {talk} 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose - some basic issues I'm afraid....
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] More comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment I won't oppose, the work done has been excellent so far, but I'm finding it difficult to agree this is our "finest work". Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TRM makeing the artical better is the important thing, hit me with some improveing comments.--Pedro J. the rookie 18:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
–Juliancolton | Talk 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [2].
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This list, describing the medalists in equestrian sports at the Olympics, is my first FLC and really the first list I've worked on seriously. It has recently undergone a peer review, which garnered comments from one other editor. I believe this article meets all of the criteria for a featured list, but, since this is my first nomination, I may have missed something completely! Thanks in advance for you time and opinions. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
|---|
|
Comments quick ones, starting more in-depth review now, but...
Geraldk (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - there's lots of stuff here, but I do want to say I'm impressed at all the work on the list - it's coming a long way.
Geraldk (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the redlink for in note 2? Geraldk (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - all my issues have been addressed promptly and thoroughly. Geraldk (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is an error - 2008 Hong Kong should say 2008 Beijing - even though the event was held in Hong Kong, it is still considered as part of the Beijing Olympics. As far as I know, this is different from the 1956 Summer Olympics situation.—Chris!c/t 23:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Chris!c/t 19:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the fact that the names of the horses were included here, similar to the official IOC website medallists database (and unlike in other wikipedia articles about the Olympic sport, like List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners). There is this entry for the 1980 winner though, where the Italian gold medal winner has the flag of the IOC affixed to the name instead of the Italian flag. I know that some countries then decided to carry the IOC flag instead of their national flags during the opening ceremony as a form of protest. But I'm not sure if the usage of IOC flag has been carried over to the medalist/s' affiliation or the official medal tally. Also, is there a way to make the column width uniform or at least visually "smooth" throughout the article? I am specifically referring to the discontinued events, wherein due to the pictures, the width of the tables are zigzagging throughout the section. Joey80 (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure if this is a standard format but looking at the other featured list related to Olympic medallists, like List of Olympic medalists in table tennis, there is a link underneath every Olympic edition, labeled as details. Maybe this can also be included here. Thanks. Joey80 (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not really a requirement and a priority but a matter of personal taste, but the table of content can also be tweaked a bit to have a look of brevity and compactness. Again, please refer to the TOC of List of Olympic medalists in table tennis. I think this will be applicable to the events currently included in the Olympic program, but the discontinued events will likely have a similar format in the table of content. Joey80 (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not familiar with the rules/scoring systems for Equestrian. But will it be possible to include a note on why there was this edition in which the gold medal was won by two competitors (e.g. in other sports like gymnastics and athletics track events, an asterisk/cross is placed beside the names of competitors to indicate that their time/scores are the same), and why there was an edition in which there was no bronze medal winner? Joey80 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fine. For the widths of the table, apparently, the Long Jump event is the one that has a different width when compared to other discontinued events, so a pic can be added or a longer pic can be found to replace the pic above it. Joey80 (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The flags of the Italian team have been brought up recently at the Olympics wikiproject. Across wikipedia articles, athletes are listed with the flags they marched under in the opening ceremony. The consensus on that has not changed, though if you wish to participate in the discussion about it, the link is here. The only way to make the table widths uniform is to eliminate pictures, to string a long row of picture such that no section is without them, or to set a standard width for columns. The former is obviously not a good idea and the latter messes up the page when viewed by some browsers. And the middle option requires more pictures than are usually available on any one topic. So, as annoying as it is, until someone finds a solution, the zigzagging is pretty common with featured lists. Geraldk (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdent) Joey80, thank you for your comments. I have included notes that explained the two differences in medaling. The details links have been added (Gerald also asked for them above!). The IOC flag thing has hopefully been explained above (thankfully, because I wasn't really sure what the answer was!). The main reason that the tables zig-zag in the discontinued events section is that some competitors' names are longer than others, and the short tables make this more obvious. I hope these explanations help, and if you have more questions, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. All of my comments have been resolved too. Joey80 (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Andrwsc
|
|---|
|
- All of my previous comments have been addressed, but on a final run-through, I have two more:
- All images need proper alt text per WP:ALT.
- The team events need
valign=topin the table cell formatting to align the flags. That is the common style on all other list articles in this series.
- Getting very close!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What images can you see that need alt text? As far as I can tell, they all do already. I think I've added the valign tags correctly, although I'm not that familiar with table formatting, so I may have done it wrong. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of
|{{flagIOCteam|...to|valign=top|{{flagIOCteam|.... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dana, I can do that automatically for you if you don't know how. Reywas92Talk 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could do that automatically it would be awesome! I don't know how to set up a script to do it... Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The script has now been run and the valigns correctly added (thank you Reywas!). Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about the alt text; my browser setting had changed.. As for the valign you need it for each table cell. For example, change every instance of
Comment Back when I was working on the List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing, it originally had a "medals by nation" table similar to the one here. However, I was told to move it back to the main article because they are sibling articles and it's more appropriate at the main one. I think that should be done here too for consistancy, because most of the medalists lists I've seen (although admittedly I haven't checked all of them) lack the table. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 14:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see what some of the other reviewers have to say about this. Some of the other Olympic lists have no by-country information, while many have country medals per year tables. There doesn't seem to be any guideline calling for the table to exist or not exist (unless I've missed one). I'm willing to change the table, either by moving it back to the main article or changing it to a medals per year table. However, this list already has two supports with the current table in place, and so I don't want to seriously change a main table in the article without at least giving the other reviewers the chance to chime in. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am substituting the current medals by country table with a medals by country by year template, to keep it consistent with most other FLs of this type. Please see the discussion with Reywas below for further details. Dana boomer (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to see consistency across all these articles, so if that means keeping the medal table only in the main article, then it should be removed here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – TRM caught a couple of the sentences that I thought were awkward, and the sorting difficulties, so I won't repeat those comments here. Don't believe anything below is a duplicate from before, but I could be wrong.
Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – With my comments taken care of earlier, I was waiting on the resolution of the other comments, particularly those of TRM. Now that that's done, I'm happy to back this list, Great first effort! Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Reywas92Talk
*What is the total number of medals awarded?
- Added.
- What is the total number of people who have won at least one medal?
- I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
- Counting them with AWB, there are 564 medal winners.
- I haven't been able to find this information in my sources. Do you know of anyplace that gives this information?
- Do you mind making a custom TOC like in other Medalist FLs?
- I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
- That's fine, it's not required.
- I played around with doing this (in response to a comment above), but couldn't find a shortened table format that I was happy with. The fact that there are so many different events makes the custom TOC not much shorter or nicer than the current one, and something to do with the different lengths of the events' names make some of the other events and sub-sections off-set weirdly, looking very unprofessional. If you can come up with a custom TOC that looks good, I would have no problem with it in the article, but with my (admittedly limited) formatting skills, I haven't been able to.
- I would prefer the Medals by country table be replaced by Medals per year. It is redundant to Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#Medal table and should be consistent with other Medalist lists.
- I am working on this replacement table in a sandbox, but gathering and entering the information into the table is taking me some time. I hope to spend some time working on this tonight and maybe even finish it. I will let you know when the new table has been imported into the list.
Everything else looks fantastic and I love how you included the horses' names. Reywas92Talk 22:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas, thank you for your comments. I apologize for being slow to answer them - real life has been busy for the past two days and I haven't had much online time. I've interspersed my replies so far above, and will continue to work on the issues as time permits. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information
doesdoesn't seem to be necessary to include in Olympic lists, I've looked through other FLs of this sort, and it's included in some, but not in several others. Thanks for your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support then; all issues resolved. Nope, I removed them. Reywas92Talk 16:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add the information then. However, just one more question before I do - does your count include the competitors in the last two "unofficial" events? It should not, because these are not considered official events, and are not included in the table. Dana boomer (talk) 13:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is fantastic! I think it is necessary and should be added to the rest of the lists as well. If I'm looking at a list of people who won medals, I want to know how many there are. I went through it again and I'm sure there are 564 people with an equestrian medal. Reywas92Talk 04:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark backgrounds have been added to years where the NOC didn't exist/didn't compete. Also, I made a mistake in my statement above which changed the meaning, please review the struck and rewritten word and let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does count both links, but there weren't very many and I'm sure I got them all unless the name was completely different. The medals per year table looks great, but please add dark backgrounds to years when a country didn't exist, like in List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing#Medals per year. Reywas92Talk 21:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has now been finished and substituted, please take a look and see what you think. I've fixed the above two examples of links, plus another one that I found. Please let me know if you see any others - I've combed through and don't see any more, but it may just be because I've looked at it too often. I'm not completely sure I trust the AWB count - for example, does it count a person more than once if their name is spelled more than one way? Also, this information
- You're fine. One more thing is to check multiple spellings. In many cases where the athlete has foreign symbols in his/her name, it is spelled with them in one place and without in another. At least one redlink is actually a bluelink but has the wrong spelling: Pierre Durand Jr. should link to Pierre Durand, Jr.. Michel Robert should be corrected to Michel Robert (equestrian). Reywas92Talk 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [4].
- Nominator(s): – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that there is a lack of featured content covering the Minnesota Vikings and I have worked fairly hard to get this list to a standard comparable to that of List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks. All of the content of the list and the prose extracted thereof is suitably references, and I believe that the lead section introduces the content of the list effectively. Since the list is based on the list of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, there should be no issue with the style or structure, and there are also images showing both a former starting QB and the current one. Information does not change from day to day, except to update the number of games started by the team's current starting QB, which only happens once a week during the football season. – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: main reference missing publisher info & access date—Chris!c/t 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Conditional Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) – contingent on the resolution of the sorting issue below.
- Comment from KV5 (yes, again)
- Now that there is a statistical table, I think there should be some discussion of those statistics in the lead, and/or in the section containing that table, because the lead should be a summary of the list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aw, thanks man :) Not bad for a Brit, eh? Now I just need someone to teach me the tune to Skol, Vikings! – PeeJay 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - 1) In the lead, it says "The club was founded by Minneapolis businessmen Bill Boyer, H. P. Skoglund and Max Winter in 1959..." - Only one of these is linked, yet I would assume that co-founding a pro football team is probably notable enough to have their own article. These two should probably be wikilinked. 2) "Starting" could be ambiguous to someone not familiar with football. There's no real explanation of what a "starting" quarterback is. Those of us familiar with the game know it means starting a game, but others may think it means starting a season, starting a half/quarter, or something else. A brief explanation might be nice. 3) I don't like how the list is set up. I scrolled down expecting to see a list of 28 players in chronological order of first appearance (with a section explaining exact seasons played, etc.) and instead there's a list of seasons with the QBs that played next to it. As is, I wouldn't call this article "List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks" so much as I would call it "List of Minnesota Vikings seasons by starting quarterback". I took a look through the other "starting quarterbacks" pages and see they all follow this format (including at least one FL), and I have to say I strongly disagree with the format that these pages are in. I think my solution rather than changing the whole thing around would be to keep that section, but before it add a list of each of the 28 quarterbacks by order of first appearance, along with appropriate notes. My philosophy is that you shouldn't have to work to figure out the actual 28 different QBs, they should just be right there in a chronological list rather than having to sift through every season and determine which ones are duplicates, etc. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- I don't see how this has anything to do with the quality of the list. I could link those names, but they would just be redlinks, and I don't know enough about those individuals to create decent articles about them at this time.
- I've added a note and moved all three notes in the article to a single section between "See also" and "References".
- I would rather not act on this until more people have commented. I have added a statistics section to the article, which lists every starting quarterback in his own row. It is currently in alphabetical order, but I could re-order it chronologically. The only problem with this would be that the players who had two spells with the franchise would only be listed at the point of their first spell. I'm also not too happy about the amount of statistical data in the table, but I added the stats that seemed most pertinent to a quarterback. Comments on this new table would be appreciated.
- You may also notice that User:Gilliganfanatic has added a table with a season-by-season account of the Vikings' postseason starting quarterbacks. I'm not sure how this could be integrated with the other table(s), but I am certainly of the opinion that it should be. Again, more comments would be welcomed. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That works for me. Like Killervogel5, I like to wait a while for more comments before supporting (or opposing, for that matter). VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- Quick comments' - I didn't go through the article in depth, but the statistics table doesn't seem to have a key. Also the "Record" column of that table doesn't seem to sort correctly. I am also curious about why the list should be limited to just starting quarterbacks. The statistics table shows the record of each quarterback including games started and not started, so just a little piece of the team's QB story seems to be missing with the quarterbacks who played but never started a game. An alternate approach, but maybe over complicated, would be to show the stats for each (starting) quarterback in for each season, and the current statistics table would serve as the totals. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The statistics table uses tooltips (see Template:tooltip) as a key. If you hover your cursor over the column header, an explanation of the abbreviation will appear.
- I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
- It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the sort template really necessary now? The content of the "W", "L" and "T" columns is now purely numerical with no positive or negative symbols, so the sorting should work perfectly without the need for an extra template. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the [[{{{1}}}]] template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be wrong here, but in my experience, teams rarely substitute their quarterback during a game. It does happen, hence why we need to refer to "the starting quarterback" and not just "the quarterback", but changes would only occur if the player is injured or the team is so far ahead that they can afford to bring on their second-string QB. Either way, it is only really the starting QB who matters, which is why only the stats for the starting QBs have been included (although those stats include times when the player was brought on during the game).
- The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. If the article was "List of Minnesota Vikings quarterbacks", then perhaps including all of the players who played at QB for the team would be appropriate, but this list and all others like it focus only on starting quarterbacks. The fact that the statistics cover all appearances is a bit of a peeve, but it's not worth breaking the custom over. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one more small point: how would you define a QB? If we're talking about anyone on this list, then that seems to include anyone who has ever made a pass for the Vikings whether they are a recognised QB or not. How would you suggest we filter the QBs from the FSs? – PeeJay 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good point. I am not sure whether or not there is a reliable source for who actually played QB. I thought pro-football-reference would have that, but they only list who was a QB on the roster and who threw passes. I still think the chart seems incomplete without including the players who played QB but didn't start. And I realize the the list is titled "Starting QBs" and not just "QBs", which is the basic issue - why have a list that limits to just a subset of the Vikings' QB, rather than have a list that includes everyone. But the answer may be that there are no RSes for everyone who played QB, just those that started there. So I can support. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout. So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170. Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1. But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list. So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the approach you suggest would be too complicated, but please feel free to create an example list in your userspace so that we can see what your suggestion would look like. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are probably right. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – The hyphen work-around for the sorting is not ideal, but it is the best solution possible given the situation. Everything else looks fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick comment
- "The Vikings are (plural) a member (singular)" - maybe it's just an ENGVAR issue (I'm in the UK), but this seems completely grammatically nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
—NMajdan•talk 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Despite the lingering issues with the sorting of the rushing yards column, I feel this meets the criteria for FL. Let's hope somebody out there knows how to resolve this ongoing sort issue or Favre finishes the season with positive rushing yards.—NMajdan•talk 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've asked Tcncv (talk · contribs) to take a look at the table to see if he can get the negative number to sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Y'all will be happy to know that I've fixed the sort issue. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [5].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After getting List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches promoted to FL, I began tackling this list. I originally had the men's and women's coaches separated into two lists but after reading a discussion on the FLC talk page, I began questioning whether the women's list could stand on its own so I made the decision to combine the two. I believe the list meets all the criteria for FL. —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Too many redlinks for my liking. Also, the "†" and "*" symbols in the women's conference championships column aren't explained in the legend. Do you need both a color change and a "†" symbol to represent a coach in the hall of fame? It would seem one of the two is enough (I'd prefer the color). Finally, I am concerned about combining both the men's and women's teams to one list. There are separate categories and articles for men's and women's teams, I don't see why the head coaching lists should be combined. Would the women's list be able to stand on its own? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think the solution is to combine it with the men's list. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to throw my two cents in: I would prefer to have two separate lists for coaches (one mens, one womens), but if others like the combined list better than I am okay with it. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
One more thing I saw just now: reference 4 shouldn't have the title in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – The list is down to a pair of red links, and I have no issue with the mix of men's and women's coaches; I see it as akin to having managers and general managers in a baseball managers list, and the lists would be short on their own. The rest of the various comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Should you mention that both teams play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)?
- I'll see if I can help make some of the articles for the red-linked coaches in return for all of the help you have given me. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One last comment - who is the coach "died before ever coaching a game". Can you add a footnote explaining who this was because it is sort of a mystery with the way the article currently is. Remember (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Remember (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good—Chris!c/t 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consider adding Category:Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball head coaches and Category:Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball head coaches to the list (also, make sure that they are fully populated). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [6].
- Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that Charlie Chaplin is a highly important figure in the development of cinema. The list has been peer reviewed and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Jimknut (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the dabs in this edit. Hopefully you now understand what I meant. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'm at a loss here. I've never messed with that section on any page, so I don't what to do. Can you help? Jimknut (talk) 03:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that they shouldn't be there. Delink those links or fix them to go directly to the intended article (why is charity linked, anyway?). Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They look okay to me. Jimknut (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire lead is a mini-biography. Does all this information belong in a filmography? LargoLarry (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a mini-bio is acceptable in a filmography. Hence the reason I did it. Jimknut (talk) 14:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured lists usually give a brief overview of the subject of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Wildhartlivie
- The image needs to have alt text added.
- Added.
- I'm not clear about the style used in the reference section. It seems that some of the links really belong under an "External links" subtitle and not the general references since the "Websites" links are not used in referencing. I don't see that the Chaplin autobiography is used in referencing, so that should be listed in a further reading section. I do think the specific references should come before the general ones.
- The web pages have been moved into section entitled "External links". The order of the specific and general references has been changed and renamed as (respectively) "footnotes" and "bibliography". Chaplin's autobiography was used as the basis for arranging the order of his films, which is clearly stated at the top of the section entitled "Official films". Therefore, I think it does indeed belong in the bibliography section and not a "further reading" section.
- Shouldn't the
{{reflist}}have two columns once the number of cites exceeds 12?- It should now, as I changed {{reflist}} to {{reflist|2}}. However, I'm using Internet Explorer so I can't see any change on my computer.
- This is mostly a question. There are quite a few direct cites in the "Notes" columns, but in others, there is a blurb of information without cites. Shouldn't there be cites for that information as well?
- Stated at the top of the "Official films" section is: "Except where otherwise referenced, the release dates, character names, and annotations presented here are derived from Chaplin's autobiography, Robinson's book, and The Films of Charlie Chaplin (1965) by Gerald D. McDonald, Michael Conway, and Mark Ricci." Is that enough or do you need specific page numbers from these books?
- I'm not clear on the rationale for the color selection in the credits column. Does this color meet the guidelines for WP:ACCESS?
- The {{Yes}} template automatically puts the word "Yes" into a moss green (#addfad) background. I did not create this template, so I don't know exactly what the green background is supposed to represent, but I think I can safely assume that it's purely a decoration. People that are color blind may not be able to see the green color, but they should able to read the word "Yes" and thus able to decifer what it means. Four of the seven filmographies that have received "Featured list" status use the {{Yes}} template. If it's okay for them then why not here as well? Jimknut (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow up - I think all of my comments and questions are satisfied, except for the ALT text. Keeping in mind that ALT text may be used by vision impaired people who may not know what Chaplin's "tramp" persona looks like, perhaps a small, more generic description of that would be helpful. (Unless others disagree, that is. My experience with ALT text in GA/FA has been to be more descriptive and explain how something would appear, rather than assume that someone already knows.) Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
|---|
|
Support: I don't think I mentioned before, but I think this is a core filmography, and you've done great work with it. Geraldk (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - excellent work, Jim. Is it at featured standard yet? Lugnuts (talk) 18:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I've past the word around asking for reviews.Jimknut (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is waiting on more reviewers. Jim, I would suggest you leave a note for DaBomb and Wildhartlivie asking them to weigh in on whether their concerns have been addressed. Geraldk (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Nehrams2020
I haven't reviewed the above comments, so if any of these conflict with issues raised above let me know.
- The single sentence at the conclusion of the lead should be merged with one of other paragraphs. It also seems to me that there is a lot of detail in the lead about his background. Perhaps a few sentences could be removed/trimmed (since his main article probably covers the same details).
- I took the final sentence and placed it at the end of the preceding paragraph. I shorted part of the biographical segment. I think that overall the lead section fits Wikipedia's standards.
- Periods aren't needed for all of the notes in the tables.
- They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
- Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out the periods. Jimknut (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any update on this? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking to other FLs, the other notes don't seem to need periods as well. The majority are not actual sentences, so they shouldn't be included. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They've been removed from brief notes such as "two reels" and "Co-writer: Mabel Normand".
- The note for Her Friend the Bandit should be formatted the same as Caught in a Cabaret and Dough and Dynamite with "a lost film" mentioned first.
- Reformated.
- United States doesn't need to be linked in the "British productions" table.
- Unlinked.
- I would recommend rewording "oeuvre" as readers may not know what this means (or provide a brief explanation).
- Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
- Yeah, but readers can be lazy. If you wish, you can link the word to Wiktionary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, I always thought that if you don't know what a word means you look it up in a dictionary, thereby increasing your knowledge and vocabulary. Nevertheless I changed "oeuvre" to "body of work".
- Remove "These are listed below." Also remove "Listed here are three that..."
- Removed.
- Consider changing "(untitled film)" to "Untitled Charity Film".
- No, I'm leaving that the way it is. The film never had an official title, so I think "untitled film" should remain in lower case with no italics.
- Capitalization of the external links should be consistent.
- If you mean the very last section then, yes, it's changed.
The list is very informative and does well covering his films. I've only seen a few of his films, so it looks like I need to add some more of his films to my queue. Let me know on my talk page if you have any questions or when you have addressed the above issues. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend the five films listed in the National Film Registry. See them with friends if you can. Also see Easy Street (1916), in which Chaplin deals with street crime, spouse abuse, poverty, drug addiction, welfare, and religion ... all in two reels!
- When I was working on the National Film Registry list, I added multiple films to my queue so I watched The Great Dictator, City Lights, and Modern Times. Definitely could catch some more of his work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: It seems that a fragment of a hitherto unknown Chaplin film called Zepped has been found. It's now added into the compilation section. See: [7] Jimknut (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I believe the above issues I have raised have been addressed and don't see any other pressing issues that would prevent passing. Good job on bringing the list up to FL status. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 17:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose - a few minor issues but issues nonetheless...
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good work, especially with those tricky tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:57, 23 November 2009 [8].
- Nominator(s): Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this complete list of all Czechoslovak Sportsperson of the Year awardees for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. Thanks for all comments in advance. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
|---|
|
Comment
—Chris!c/t 18:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support - thanks for your patience, the list looks good. —Chris!c/t 19:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments and ideas. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, thank you. Fixed. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are still two remaining, which you can see here. The toolbox is at the top right corner of this page. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked it and found one dab link, which I have fixed. May I ask, what toolbox you mean? Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
One more comment after looking at the list again: reference 2 needs an access date. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support – Looks like a nice list. I can only assume the non-English sources are reliable, since it's hard for us English speakers to check the ones in Czeck or Slovak. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the sources: The online reference, which is in Czech, is an official web page of the Club of Sports Journalists of the Czech Republic (Klub sportovních novinářů ČR), which is a successor organization of the Club of Czechoslovak Sports Journalists, which awarded the trophy. The Slovak source is SME, one of the most widely read serious newspaper in Slovakia. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Looks good. Only one issue that I could see—the "team" column in the team doesn't sort properly (you probably should have it sort alphabetically by sort by men, and then by women). When this is resolved I will support. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed it. Did you mean it this way? Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just noticed you did some copyediting in the text. Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, and yes, the sorting fix was good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. I didn't evaluate the foreign-lanugage sources for reliability, but I'll assume good faith based on Jan's explanation above. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There were some issues with the article lacking non-breaking spaces, but due to the longevity of this FLC, I took the liberty of fixing those myself so I could support.—NMajdan•talk 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 02:07, 23 November 2009 [9].
- Nominator(s): ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on this article offline for several days, and I think it meets the criteria now. Any and all comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 13:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Maybe a good idea to make the key into table format
- Overlinking of Cricinfo
- Don't denote rows with only color per WP:ACCESS
—Chris!c/t 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: I've added the key to a table to make it into two columns, but I'm not sure if that's what you were suggesting. The other two are done. I've removed the colours now that they are redundant. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from -SpacemanSpiff 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 01:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Comments have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Muralitharan is well ahead of other bowlers by number of five wicket hauls in Tests with 66 to his name, while Australian cricketer Shane Warne ranks in second place with 37.' instead of a comma, should a semi colon be used? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nothing mentioned about how he has 22 ten-wicket hauls, well ahead of Shane Warne with 10. [13] Needs a sentence or so about this. Mention that Murali has taken 3-for in international Twenty20 cricket, instead of just saying "... he has not taken a five wicket haul in a Twenty20 International." Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lot better thanks. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done How is it now? ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Inconsistency in hyphenation (see List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Glenn McGrath); I think this list should be hyphenated per WP:HYPHEN. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, agreed and done. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [14].
- Nominator(s): Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been brought up to FL standards. Ophois (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
|---|
|
Comment - FL no longer starts with "The following is a list of episodes ..." anymore. For examples of a more engaging opening sentence, see recently promoted FLs. Also are there any images you can add?—Chris!c/t 01:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
—Chris!c/t 03:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris!c/t 05:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - I was initially asked about which images should be used on the page, and in the process I provided additional commentary (personal opinions) about possible improvements to the article on Ophois's talk page. I'm placing them here, per their request (and rightfully so), so that others can see what I'm suggesting and either cross it off their lists or disagree.
- Well, first off the second image is a non-free image so deciding between a non-free and a free should be easy. :D But, at the same time neither image is really necessary. The page doesn't talk about the actors really. I've never understood why some people feel like they have to have an image there (which, I know wasn't your initial doing, but what someone basically requested at the FAC). That's my onion. FLC doesn't say you have to have an image there to be featured.
- On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
- Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm gonna have to undo it. Combining the episode numbers like that screws up the formatting for some reason. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On some other minor notes, glancing at the page: I'd probably move the viewership numbers behind the airdates. In theory, it's a chronological thing. It gets made (which dictates ep number, writer, director), then it gets aired, and then we get viewership. That's just my thoughts on that. You could also simply the Ep # and Series # columns into a single "Ep #" column that sports two numbers (e.g., 25(3)) as the "series #" is still an "episode number" and the average reader can probably look at two columns and easily understand that you're continue to count the overall number of the episode with its place within that respective seasons. IDK, just a way to be more efficient.
- In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
- Done. Ophois (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Nielsen rating stuff, "TV season" can be cut. I recently cut that from Smallville's pages because I realized it's redundant to "Season premiere" and "Season finale". We basically tell the reader when the show premieres and ends, and then follow it up with a column that tells them the same thing again. The same with "Originally aired" in the DVD box. Since it's directly below the other, we don't need to repeat that information, because we literally just stated it. Personally, I would also drop "Ratings". The main problem with that figure is that it's a percentage to a number we don't have. 3.14 million is something the reader can understand, but trying to understand 1.4% of households without knowing how many households were watching TV is kind of hard. If you don't know that number, you might assume that it means 1.4% of ALL households in the US, which isn't true. It's largely irrelevant when trying to understand how well the show did. The viewership is really all you need, and the rankings so we know how it compared to other shows on TV.
- Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The tables are part of the list/sublist template. The only way to do unlink Kripke and others is to do so on the season pages. Ophois (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see what you mean. I've fix the season 4 table. Ophois (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I fixed it. I also combined the episode numbers into one column. Ophois (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but one of the other main problems with these setups is that any vandalism or inaccuracies on one page affects this page as well. I think that there have been a few discussions about transcluding large chunks of prose from multiple articles into a single article, and the general consensus has been that it shouldn't be done. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can just add hidden text explaining to edit the main season page. Ophois (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even realize that they were like that...and they really shouldn't be. One page should never dictate another page like that. Should there be an error on season 2's table, or just a minor correction, you're basically restricting the access to the page. It's like a semi-protection without the formality. The reason I say that is because, Wikipedia is designed so that the average reader can read a page and should they find something that needs correcting all they have to do is click "edit" and go and correct it. By hiding the actual code on another page you restrict access to the page to only those people that understand the transclusion you've created. I understand the "easierness" of doing it that way, but it's basically discriminating against general editors that don't understand why when they click "edit" the text they were looking at doesn't actually show up. It kind of goes against the basic principle of Wikipedia. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. I looked over it some more. I tweaked the lead a bit, and the only other things I saw was the season finale (for the current season) listed at the bottom and linking names. Unless there is a source that says it's going to be May 2010, we cannot assume that because of previous trends that it will be. Anything can happen to change that. It's probably best to leave it as TBD. The linking issue is one of WP:OVERLINK. Some people think you should link once per section. Personally, I think with a page like this, it's so close together the first instance is all that is needed. If you choose once a section, or just the first instance, it doesn't really matter but I saw Kripke's name linked like 5 times in one season's section. The same with other names. I'd go through and see who's been linked too often. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 20:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than what I list above, that's pretty much all I see. I'll take a look again later, but the page generally looks pretty good. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: On quick glance, it looks great, but there should be some note that the seasonal average ratings are Live + 7 averages of all broadcasts of the series from that year including repeats. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are they? I am unable to find any information about the ratings info from ABC Medianet. Do you know where to find that? Ophois (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49. These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7". Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night". Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week. The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available. A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released. These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc. These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays. On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD). Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released. These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used. Seasonal averages cound great, right? Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season. As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia. Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages. Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average. Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million. Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing. So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages. They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season. You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using. I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it comes from the same source, let's up the reader can understand that the same note applies. As for the "not every source", I'm referring to when places like the Hollywood Reporter, and other news organizations report these figures. I've seen discrepancies in them compared to the original ABC Medianet reportings (which apparently don't find their way to the internet archive all that much, so when the link dies you have find a new source). I think that the news orgs. tend to go straight to Neilsen if they can (and I've seen rankings different because of that...I think it was either season 6 or 7 of Smallville that jumped 4 or 5 rankings up because of the numbers the new source was using after the Medianet link died). I think it's best to just do the note, because you're comparing it to other shows, and in fairness those other shows also have their repeats included as well. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 19:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note to that top of the episode section about viewers. Is it okay? I added a note to the seasonal ratings about reruns. Do you want me to do the same for ranking? Ophois (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ophois has done a great job with this "article". All individual episode numbers on the page are final Live + SD, with the exception of the current season. You say that not every seasonal average includes repeats, but all of the ones that ABC Medianet uses include repeats and that is the source that we are using. I agree that whatever we use is "still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly", but I have no problem dropping the ranking column or adding a note. –thedemonhog talk • edits 17:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what LIVE+SD and LIVE+7 means Demon. The fact remains is that not every overnight figure reflects that. It reflects what they've managed to acquire in data when they publish the article. Sometimes that's Live+SD, and sometimes that isn't. If you have Live+SD numbers for each individual episode, but the season average that you have a source for is really Live+7, then averaging the individual numbers will not be reflective of the actual average. Even if you take into account that the season averages include repeats (and that depends on what source your using, because I've seen season averages differ greatly because of the source reporting them), it's still not an accurate representation of how the show compares to others, because you'd have to find a source that does everything you want perfectly. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a note. Ophois (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, okay, allow me to explain. I am going to be speaking in terms of total viewers, i.e. ignoring 18-49. These days, the most common numbers that are being tracked are "Live + SD" and "Live + 7". Live + S(ame) D(ay) counts the number of viewers who watched a given program live or recorded it and watched it before 3 a.m. on the same "night". Live + 7 tracks those who watched a program live or recorded it and watched it within a week. The morning after primetime shows air, at close to 9 a.m. Pacific time, preliminary Live + SD ratings become available. A few hours later, at around 2 p.m. on the day after a show airs, its final Live + SD ratings are released. These account for overruns (sometimes you get networks bleeding shows over the hour mark, so these finals adjust for that), some areas not airing the program (occasianally, stations opt for local programming instead of what is being broadcast in the rest of the country), etc. These finals show up again in the weekly rankings, which come out on Tuesdays. On the Monday two weeks after the week of broadcast, the Live + 7 ratings are released (but these are not as publicly available as Live + SD). Also on Tuesdays, seasonal average rankings are released. These use numbers called "Most Current" ratings, which are a mix of "Live + SD" and "Live + 7", i.e. where Live + 7 numbers are available, they are factored in; otherwise, Live + SD are used, further i.e. this average contains Live + 7 numbers except for the last two episodes, for which Live + SD are used. Seasonal averages cound great, right? Yes, they do, except for one thing: they include ratings for repeats that are broadcast throughout the season. As some shows play several repeats, their averages fall, while other shows that do not play repeats seem better by comparison, skewing all ranking systems and making the term "seasonal average" a bit misleading, especially on Wikipedia. Wikipedia mostly uses Live + SD numbers for individual episodes, but Most Current or Live + 7 including repeats for season averages. Even without plugging all of the numbers into their calculator, someone might look at the season 1 average (3.81 million) and then look at the individual ratings for season 1 and see that only four of the numbers fall below the average. Plugging the available numbers in, you find that the average for new episodes that season was actually 4.52 million. Add the fact that DVR ratings were not even tracked until 2007 because they were not a big deal before then and everything gets more confusing. So, I suggest either a brief note that averages include reruns or simply calculate new averages. They are easily verifiable, as anyone can plug them into their calculators. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that isn't the number the ranking is based on, and if the individual numbers we have are the overnight estimates and not the official numbers then you're going to be wrong. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is something that I have come to realize over the years (and checked with a calculator). –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Anyway, all of my original issues were resolved, so I support this page for FLC. BIGNOLE (Contact me)
- I had to do some digging with the Wayback Machine, but I managed to find more info on the Region 4 releases, and added them to the table. Does it look okay? Ωphois 23:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also updated the Blu-ray section, as I just learned that Blu-ray regions are completely different than DVD's. Ωphois 23:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Flash
|
|---|
|
- Support: Comments and issues resolved now, I believe this list meets FL criteria. The Flash {talk} 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ωphois 07:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just one thing: in the sentence, "The brothers first attempt to hunt down Azazel—the demon responsible for their mother's death—and then Lilith—who holds the contract for Dean's soul and attempts to free Lucifer.", should there not be am em dash between "soul" and "and"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedemonhog (talk • contribs) 19:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lilith is the one trying to free Lucifer, not the Winchesters. She holds Dean's contract in season 3 and frees Lucifer in season 4. Ωphois 19:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 16:03, 22 November 2009 [15].
- Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the standards required. Ironholds (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
|---|
Hope these brief comments help. Perhaps more later. BencherliteTalk 21:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's looking a bit better now. Further suggestions:
|
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one dab link showing up in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's still one dab link showing up in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The images need alt text per WP:ALT. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support assuming the points noted below are addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments from Bencherlite
Sorry not to revisit the list after your improvements. I think that the photographs and the notes column are useful improvements; two minor points are that I think you need to confirm that your references verify the additional notes, for completeness, and as it's a sortable list, the offices e.g. LCJ need to be wikilinked each time. I think I mentioned on your talk page that I've got Denning's biography, which has some comments about the role of the MR (or at least the way Denning treated the office), which might interest you.
You may have missed it, but there was a big kerfuffle about red-linked items in lists recently, which ended up with the existing wording "a minimal proportion of red links" being kept. As I agitated against the removal of that criterion there, I suppose I ought to raise the issue here lest I be accused of favouritism! As Masters of the Rolls, all of the names would pass the notability threshold in principle, I would have thought. I know that the missing names don't have biographies in the ODNB, but do you know whether the missing names are completely unknown biographically, or could something be written from somewhere else? BencherliteTalk 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the names are so unknown that the ODNB doesn't have entries (their failure, hah; I could write some with the sourcing I've got, easily), some I just haven't had any time to write, what with other projects occupying much of my attention. I'll link in the notes section tomorrow morning; feel free to email me the work at thedarkthird@hotmail.co.uk. On a slightly unrelated note, getting Denning to FA would be absolutely magnificent. If you've got bios and I've got bios, feel like working on it together at some point? Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinked, and added the new references. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot that's good about this list, but I don't think that it's of Featured standard without the missing articles; where articles can be written for such notable people, as you say they can, they really ought to be to represent WP's best work (as per the recent redlinks discussion). So, for me, it currently fails 5(a) since it does not have "a minimal proportion of red links". Other people's views seem to vary, however, so I won't put anything in "bold type" and I'll leave it to the closing director to assess. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will other reviewers comment on how the red links affect their stance? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot that's good about this list, but I don't think that it's of Featured standard without the missing articles; where articles can be written for such notable people, as you say they can, they really ought to be to represent WP's best work (as per the recent redlinks discussion). So, for me, it currently fails 5(a) since it does not have "a minimal proportion of red links". Other people's views seem to vary, however, so I won't put anything in "bold type" and I'll leave it to the closing director to assess. BencherliteTalk 15:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilinked, and added the new references. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Goodraise 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thoroughly reviewed the nominated list and can now weakly support its promotion. (Will fully support once the above two issues are resolved.) Goodraise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Supporting after all my issues have been resolved. I'd like to note that I've thoroughly reviewed the list, in particular for prose quality, source formating, source reliability, image copyright status, image alt text, and general compliance with MOS pages. Right now, the only way I see to further improve the article is by adding more images and removing the red links. Good work! Goodraise 05:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaborating on the red links as requested above: I will not oppose a list with less than 50% red links. The criterion is simply worded too vaguely for me to demand fewer. Goodraise 16:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
*In File:LordLindley cropp.jpg, the link to a source is broken.
- The first sentence in Lindley's caption is a fragment. Mm40 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link to here, but will let Ironholds write his own caption! BencherliteTalk 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is still broken for me; it may be a problem on my part, but i doubt it. Mm40 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to let it pass, since I now assume it's an issue on my part if everyone else can access it. Mm40 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't access it either, but I did a manual search through the VIA and picked up a copy of the new link. I've updated the commons page; it's http://via.lib.harvard.edu/via/deliver/fullRecordDisplay?_collection=via&inoID=243911&recordNumber=4&fullgridwidth=5&method=view&recordViewFormat=grid if you want to check. Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to let it pass, since I now assume it's an issue on my part if everyone else can access it. Mm40 (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is still broken for me; it may be a problem on my part, but i doubt it. Mm40 (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the link to here, but will let Ironholds write his own caption! BencherliteTalk 12:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - a nice list, Ironh. Shame I was too lazy to work on it. Majorly talk 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, tis fine. Took me a couple of months to get around to it! Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:21, 21 November 2009 [18].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may now feel as if WP:FLC has been overtaken by WP:CRICKET lists, but hopefully you all appreciate the statistical nature of the game, just as us Brits have got used to with "baseball" (new-fangled invention...!) So, this is built on the current Murali FLC and hopefully has taken into account comments made thusfar. Please make as many comments as you need, and if anything isn't completely obvious, particularly to our non-cricketing types, please let me know. Thanks for your time, in advance, happy reviewing. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, missed that. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Nice article, meets the criteria as far as I can see. Why is everyone staying away from these two though? ;P ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Why the Australian bias, TRM?! Why create such a list on a flash-in-the-pan cricketer such as McGrath when List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Derek Pringle and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Richard Ellison, giants of the cricket world, (to name but two) are still redlinks?Err, looks fine to me; see what you think of my minor copy-edits. Support BencherliteTalk 12:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I would wholeheartedly approve, if only you had learned to spell.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – A full reading of the list revealed nothing that would cause me to withhold a straight support. Why can't all reviews take this little time? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Haven't checked the links, however, the prose it good. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 10:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Fixed a few links for you, Old Trafford was linking to the football stadium, Headingley to the suburb and National Stadium to what in essence was a dab page. Also, any reason that Chris Martin is written as such, and not CS Martin, like the rest?? Harrias (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the bad link fixes, much appreciated. As for CS Martin, I just blew it as it needed disambiguating and I wasn't thinking. It's now consistently formatted. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but could you double check with default sorting, either under I or most likely G or M, because at the moment it is under L whereas a lot of other List articles are sorted under different letters. SGGH ping! 09:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [19].
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it was about time I did some work for a change. So, a content fork of the featured article Adam Gilchrist... Comments appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport from Bencherlite
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
|---|
|
About as good as I'd expect from you, which is meant as a compliment! Just a few thoughts:
That's enough for now, I think. BencherliteTalk 14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I think the number of the Test should be in there like most of them. It would also serve to show that it was the rather steep decline in his Test form in the last few years. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean his test number or the overall test number? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further reflection, I think it's unnecessary as I have already mentioned his debut and retirement in the lead, and each century is dated, so if the reader wishes to draw the conclusion that he slumped towards the end of his Test career then he should be capable of doing so relatively easily without yet another column. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More research needs to be done, as in many of these tons, a record of some kind was created, because of his high scoring. I've put in a few off the top of my head but there are many more. The 131 v SL in SCG 99 helped break a record for the biggest successful runchase at the SCG. In those days, ~270 was a a very high score. The one in NZ in 2000 was also resulted in a 350 odd score which was an Aus record IIRC. Many of them involved very large partnserhips and records with ME Waugh. Becuase of the way he played, SR is also very important to why Australia was so successful. More details need to be added as almost every century resulted in an Aus victory or completely reversed the match sitaution, like the Mumbai 2001 or Hobart 99. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 270 still the highest score chased at the SCG? It was in 2003. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still the highest run-chase at the SCG in an ODI. [20]. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add a bit but this isn't supposed to be a "we love Gilchrist" article...! Factual statements of records are one thing, saying things are "important" for various other issues is most likely OR. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think "highest run chase at the SCG" is a little bit too much like trivia. The second highest run chase in history has a little more gravitas. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally, that source suggests that 270 is the current record, achieved in 2009. The one which Gilchrist contributed to was 260, right? The second-highest? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still the highest run-chase at the SCG in an ODI. [20]. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is 270 still the highest score chased at the SCG? It was in 2003. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More research needs to be done, as in many of these tons, a record of some kind was created, because of his high scoring. I've put in a few off the top of my head but there are many more. The 131 v SL in SCG 99 helped break a record for the biggest successful runchase at the SCG. In those days, ~270 was a a very high score. The one in NZ in 2000 was also resulted in a 350 odd score which was an Aus record IIRC. Many of them involved very large partnserhips and records with ME Waugh. Becuase of the way he played, SR is also very important to why Australia was so successful. More details need to be added as almost every century resulted in an Aus victory or completely reversed the match sitaution, like the Mumbai 2001 or Hobart 99. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 06:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can strike rate be added to the ODI centuries table? Aaroncrick (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course. I knew something was missing... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is now done (after fouling up once...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe interesting to mention how he striked at over 100 in 13 of the 16 ODI centuries? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thus noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe interesting to mention how he striked at over 100 in 13 of the 16 ODI centuries? Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scoring 149 runs from 104 deliveries, including eight sixes and thirteen fours, Gilchrist made the highest ever score and quickest ever century in the final of the World Cup.[5] Do you really need to say "ever"? Aaroncrick (talk)
- No, probably not, so I'll remove... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, leaning towards support. Will wait until next week to see if YellowMonkey is happy. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, probably not, so I'll remove... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion perhaps indicate those matches in which he won the Man of the Match award? BencherliteTalk 09:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You again?! Sure, doing... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
End of first paragraph: Don't like the repetition of "Describing" and "described" in the same sentence as it is now. Maybe change the second to "called"?Commas after "against Sri Lanka in 1999" and "128 from 98 deliveries against New Zealand"?"Gilchrist scored centuries against all other nine Test nations." Move "other" to after "nine", where it seems to belong.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Everything looks ok. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 06:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [21].
- Nominator(s): Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the 1924 list which was just promoted, but I've gone through to correct problems that cropped up in the previous nom. Geraldk (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - don't see any problems—Chris!c/t 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - it all looks good. --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both for the reviews and support. Geraldk (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Will be back with more. Goodraise 19:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 00:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if some of my more nitpicky comments during this review have caused you stress. That was not the intention. I also apologize for not revisiting sooner. If you look at my contributions, you'll find that I haven't been very active this past week. Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 06:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The general reference could use some instructions on how to retrieve the actual data from that site.
- I've switched the link to take you to the more user-friendly version of the dbase. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. However, this version of the database appears to allow direct links to result pages. For example this link could be used to reference the whole bobsleigh section without a need for the reader to query the database themselves. Using this method throughout the article would be a significant improvement. By the way, you didn't change the title of reference 4. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The olympic.org website is undergoing significant changes, and I did not link to individual dbase results for the simple reason that the pages may not last very long. Seeing as use of a general reference is accepted practice on FLC, and in the interest of meeting the stability criterion, I'd prefer not to change it. Are you saying that a general reference is unnacceptable? Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that direct links would significantly improve the usability of the list to users who care enough to check its claims against the sources. Anyway, I don't think that replacing dead references would make the list unstable in the sense of criterion 6. If I may ask, exactly how unstable is olympic.org? Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a hard question to answer. They just revamped their entire website, and sometime in the next few weeks I'll have to go back through a bunch of Olympics FLs and fix a whole lot of dead links. The only part they didn't touch was this database, but I'm worried that it, too, will change soon, hence my concern about lots and lots of potentially dead links. I think you're right that it would make the article better to have individual refs, but, well, that's the conflict. If you think that verifiability outweighs (potential) instability, I'm happy to go through and add them. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I don't think that instability is an issue here at all. I'd be very surprised if criterion 6 was intended that way. The way I understand it, it's only about edit wars and ongoing content disputes. I can also understand your reluctance to make yourself more work than necessary, but that's simply part of getting that bronze star. After all, you don't have to do it, if you catch my drift. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, if you're holding the promotion hostage to it, I do. Any suggestions for how to write the citations? Seems to me they would all look the same to the reader, the only difference being the url, which is not visible in the cite web template. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not holding anything hostage. My point was that you're here at FLC voluntarily. Nobody is forcing you, right? As for the citations, WP:CITE leaves a great deal of freedom. If you don't want so many citations to look the same (which I wouldn't object to), then you could, for example, use some sort of shortened footnote system. Goodraise 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, if you're holding the promotion hostage to it, I do. Any suggestions for how to write the citations? Seems to me they would all look the same to the reader, the only difference being the url, which is not visible in the cite web template. Geraldk (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, I don't think that instability is an issue here at all. I'd be very surprised if criterion 6 was intended that way. The way I understand it, it's only about edit wars and ongoing content disputes. I can also understand your reluctance to make yourself more work than necessary, but that's simply part of getting that bronze star. After all, you don't have to do it, if you catch my drift. Goodraise 00:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a hard question to answer. They just revamped their entire website, and sometime in the next few weeks I'll have to go back through a bunch of Olympics FLs and fix a whole lot of dead links. The only part they didn't touch was this database, but I'm worried that it, too, will change soon, hence my concern about lots and lots of potentially dead links. I think you're right that it would make the article better to have individual refs, but, well, that's the conflict. If you think that verifiability outweighs (potential) instability, I'm happy to go through and add them. Geraldk (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm not saying that. I'm only saying that direct links would significantly improve the usability of the list to users who care enough to check its claims against the sources. Anyway, I don't think that replacing dead references would make the list unstable in the sense of criterion 6. If I may ask, exactly how unstable is olympic.org? Goodraise 02:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The olympic.org website is undergoing significant changes, and I did not link to individual dbase results for the simple reason that the pages may not last very long. Seeing as use of a general reference is accepted practice on FLC, and in the interest of meeting the stability criterion, I'd prefer not to change it. Are you saying that a general reference is unnacceptable? Geraldk (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's better. However, this version of the database appears to allow direct links to result pages. For example this link could be used to reference the whole bobsleigh section without a need for the reader to query the database themselves. Using this method throughout the article would be a significant improvement. By the way, you didn't change the title of reference 4. Goodraise 00:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've switched the link to take you to the more user-friendly version of the dbase. Geraldk (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I've thoroughly reviewed this nomination. I'll be happy to fully support it once that minor citation issue is dealt with. Goodraise 04:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – "464 athletes from 25 National Olympic Committees...". Try not to have a sentence start with a number like this. That's the only thing that jumped out at me when I read the list. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Geraldk (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – That one comment was my only concern about the list. Individual refs would be a nice luxury, but are not important enough to me to withhold support over. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm going out of town for three days, and will be able to address concerns when I return. Apologies, this was sudden. Geraldk (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [22].
- Nominator(s): --Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a complete list featuring Madonna's albums (studio, live, compilation etc). Since her catalogue is huge so there are two separate articles for singles and albums. This is the albums discography of Madonna. I believe the article is worthy of being Wikipedia's best. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
CommentsSupport
Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should have a maximum of four paragraphs. This article has five.Not entirely sure making the third paragraph so bulky was the right way to go. I suggest splitting it again and just getting rid of the last paragraph, it's pretty trivial.— ξxplicit 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ya I feel so now too. Removed. :) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following references should be updated, as they redirect to different titles: "Madonna's label sues record giant", "Madonna Makes a $60 Million Deal", "Thank You For the Music! How Madonna's New Single Will Give Abba Their Greatest-Ever Hit".- Replaced with working references.--Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discogs is a user generated site and not a reliable source.- Replaced with Billboard. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some references do not use templates (specifically the book references). Considering using the {{harvnb}} template.- Whoahh. This was tricky but done :) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than one reference contains <ref name="aus">, despite having different content. Please correct this.- Corrected. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This reference is used more than once. Consider combining duplicate references.— ξxplicit 02:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Separated to respective urls. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Dabomb :) --Legolas (talk2me) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I made a few suggestions to the nominator before he brought it here, so I'm pretty happy with it right now, and don't have that much to offer, especially after the reviews that have already come. Generally it's very good, although I'm a bit concerned that the sales figures will date and may become unverifiable. Some are referenced to books from 2002 and 2004 -- surely they're more than that by now?
- Actually I did try to find references as current as possible but its very difficult for pre 1990 albums when Nielsen Soundscan didnot track their sales. Hence the recent most book is used. Sorry about that. :(
- No problem. I know we work on the "WP:V, not Truth" principal. :) Matthewedwards : Chat 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I did try to find references as current as possible but its very difficult for pre 1990 albums when Nielsen Soundscan didnot track their sales. Hence the recent most book is used. Sorry about that. :(
- The book by Maury Dean is listed in the references section, but no notes use it.. is that a mistake?
- Well here's a mistake. I'll remove it. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Matthewedwards : Chat 02:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, one final thing is that I don't think the 3 "List of bestselling albums in..." are particularly necessary in the see also section, but it's a personal preference and nothing that's a big deal. Support Matthewedwards : Chat 04:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support on fixing the overlinking in the References section. The list appears comprehensive and well sourced. However, you should de-link pretty much all of the wikilinks in the references section. We already have wikilinks for most these in the article (such as Billboard or Australian Recording Industry Association) and the others (e.g. BBC or The Daily Telegraph) aren't really helpful IMO. Colin°Talk 14:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I understand about wp:overlink on Billboard and ARIA, but how does a single link of BBC and The Daily Telegraph violates wp:overlink? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't. I just mentioned that "IMO" those weren't really helpful but if you disagree then that's fine. The issue was the overlinking. Colin°Talk 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. So do you feel that I addressed your concern for the overlinking? Please check. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Though I've now noticed that your "work" and "publisher" parameters to "cite web" are the wrong way round. Have a look at the template help. Colin°Talk 10:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. So do you feel that I addressed your concern for the overlinking? Please check. --Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't. I just mentioned that "IMO" those weren't really helpful but if you disagree then that's fine. The issue was the overlinking. Colin°Talk 09:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I understand about wp:overlink on Billboard and ARIA, but how does a single link of BBC and The Daily Telegraph violates wp:overlink? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Dt128 (talk · contribs)
Resolved comments from Dt128
|
|---|
|
Websites and chart names should not be in italics. See this sample edit to guide you.Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Corrected such links. Please check Dabomb. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks; looks good now. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected such links. Please check Dabomb. --Legolas (talk2me) 05:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [23].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have created this list based on the current FL List of Arkansas Razorbacks in the NFL Draft. I used several sources for the NFL Draft listing data including Pro-Football-Reference.com and the official University of Oklahoma website. However, I made considerable effort to find original sources for Pro Bowl and NFL Championship listings. I believe this list meets all the criteria for a featured list.—NMajdan•talk 16:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Just a few quick things:
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Each NFL franchise seeks to add new players through the annual NFL Draft. The team with the worst record the previous year |
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment above.—NMajdan•talk 11:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- You'd have to duplicate the reference for each draftee from that particular year. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about making a third header in the References (along with Generic and Specific) for the yearly links to the pro-football-reference website?—NMajdan•talk 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That probably won't fly, but the information is all verified by the current general references, so you probably don't absolutely have to have the references in the table. You could also include this as additional support if you like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dropped the references column. Will work on the other changes to make this list sortable over the coming days.—NMajdan•talk 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That probably won't fly, but the information is all verified by the current general references, so you probably don't absolutely have to have the references in the table. You could also include this as additional support if you like. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about making a third header in the References (along with Generic and Specific) for the yearly links to the pro-football-reference website?—NMajdan•talk 19:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd have to duplicate the reference for each draftee from that particular year. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why not make it sortable? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, no reason not to make this list sortable.—Chris!c/t 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm...look up.—NMajdan•talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry about that. I'm pressed for time, and was just quickly glancing at each FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm...look up.—NMajdan•talk 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now sortable with the exception of the Player name column. That will be sortable as soon as I add {{sortname}} to the 300+ names.—NMajdan•talk 15:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Player name column now sortable.—NMajdan•talk 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the notes are not referenced—Chris!c/t 00:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes are just specifying more detail than what is in the table and thus covered why the same references that the table has which are the general references.—NMajdan•talk 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I support.—Chris!c/t 03:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notes are just specifying more detail than what is in the table and thus covered why the same references that the table has which are the general references.—NMajdan•talk 03:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment before I support: should the 2010 Draft, which won't occur until next April, be included this soon? Most sports FLs I've seen don't include future events, at least not while they are at FLC. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'll remove it. I liked it better when the list was unsortable. I don't like it as much now.—NMajdan•talk 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – My comments have all been addressed and the list meets FL criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:44, 17 November 2009 [24].
- Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is complete and meets the criteria. It has had a peer review, at which several references were added and some formatting issues were corrected. Due to my current situation, I may be slower to respond than normal to comments, but I appreciate any that are made and will make every effort to address them through correction or rationale. This is a different style of list from many of my nominations in that it is not a table format; however, I feel that the current format does a better job of explaining the awards themselves as an appropriate lead article for the forthcoming topic, entitled "Awards in Major League Baseball". The criteria for inclusion of this list are determined by using the awards pages from the official Major League Baseball website, so there are some baseball awards, included those presented to Major League Baseball players, that are not included. These are the "official" awards; this topic will (hopefully) someday become a subtopic of a larger, overarching topic of all baseball awards. This is the first step. Have at it! Disclaimer: As the playoffs continue, some of the awards and recipients may change during the course of this nomination. Because the awards are presented at different times of the year and at different points throughout the offseason, it is difficult to find a time when any of the awards does not have a change forthcoming within a few weeks. So, we will roll with it for the time being. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab - there is one dab link; see [25] —Chris!c/t 01:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like someone else fixed it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I think this is nicely written. Besides, I can't see any problem, so that's why I support.—Chris!c/t 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments – This is only a partial review of the list, having made it through the Silver Slugger Award. Will try to review the rest later.
|
Weak support – The only reason I'm not offering a full support is that the 2009 award winners are in the process of being announced; questions about stability could result from this. I'm sure KV will keep everything properly updated, though, so I will provide a partial backing. Everything else appears in order now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will do my best. Gold Gloves were announced yesterday and today and are already updated; post-season MVPs are done to the best of my knowledge, and I think the Silver Sluggers are tomorrow and Friday. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why aren't all the winners of the Warren C. Giles Trophy and the William Harridge Trophy listed? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's no information available (that I could find, anyway) on when they were first presented under those names. I could put a "see also" to the lists of NL and AL pennant winners, which are separate from this list. They, however, are broken down by eras, and the more recent lists of winners are available by clicking through to the NLCS and ALCS, respectively, because that's where the list of pennant winners since 1969 live. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A {{seealso}} link to the appropriate articles would be nice, if possible. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Tis done, good sir. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, thanks. Next thing: the position abbreviations in the "current holder" tables need explaining (preferably a key, but I suppose links will do too). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, since you're probably already aware, but ref 21 (BBHOF) is dead. It won't hold up promotion, but be sure to fix it when you can. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching that; I didn't realize there were any links to the HOF website in here. Replaced with a link to the ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note, since you're probably already aware, but ref 21 (BBHOF) is dead. It won't hold up promotion, but be sure to fix it when you can. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, thanks. Next thing: the position abbreviations in the "current holder" tables need explaining (preferably a key, but I suppose links will do too). Dabomb87 (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Tis done, good sir. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-referenced and formatted with HQ lead-ins from basically all already featured lists. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:41, 15 November 2009 [26].
- Nominator(s): -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all six FL criteria. The list provides a detailed view of the womenwho have played One Day International cricket representing India. It is comprehensive as of today, with a likely addition rate of about five to eight players every two to three years, and changing statistics for another five to eight players. The intro provides a summary view (with links) of ODI cricket and the Indian team. Other parts of the lead summarize the team's performance and that of the key players. One table provides the detailed view of all players while the other details the captains' performances over the years. I will be happy to address comments/suggestions/questions etc promptly. -SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from nominator -- Just addressing some issues that are very likely to come up:
- Sorting by last names is not used because of the different formats of names in India. Most importantly, the last name of some of these players isn't even part of the most common name.
- The ndashes behave a bit oddly in some sorts. It doesn't happen always and not with all columns either. This appears to be a problem with other featured lists too and I haven't been able to find a solution yet.
- The extra title bars in the middle and at the bottom are just for clarity. They do not affect sorting etc.
cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Superb. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Oppose - but just a lot of little things that can easily be fixed...
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work, and an inspiration to the cricketing community who are attempting to recover some ground here at FLC! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Only a couple of quick ones from me since the prose in the lead looks reasonable to me (though I'm not a cricket expert and can't judge content as well as some others). First, there could be a sentence or two in the lead on the team's captains, since it has a seperate table; even a brief mention of the number of captains would be helpful. Second, I've seen reviewers say that proper names should not be included in alt text, meaning this needs further revision here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text changed (didn't know the proper nouns rule), thanks to User:Juliancolton for tweaking it further. I've added mention of the captains, split it to two sections -- number of captains along with the number of matches, most successful captain with the other stats summary (had to split this way instead of placing the no of captains along no of players as the stats would then be out of place). Thanks for the feedback, let me know if there are any other comments/concerns. -SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks good. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [27].
- Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The next in my series of governor lists. This was formerly featured, but was long ago defeatured for having been left behind as standards improved. The only current issue is, no one seems to know how many governors there have been. Most sources say 73, including news sources; however, the state archives (which, for a state as historically rich as Delaware, are embarassingly deficient) say 82. It's just a matter of how you count repeat governors. This article so far goes with 73. -Golbez (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
|
Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All in all a very good list. There are a few comments though.
- As a follow on from NMajdan's comment about colour above, the lieutenant-governors parties are only given by the shading.
- My general thought on this has been, the list is of the governors, not the lieutenant governors. Their party is mentioned for help, but should be considered slightly extraneous information. For the details of their terms and party affiliations, that's what the list of lieutenant governors is for. If others continue to disagree, I'll find something to deal with it.
- One way round it would be to have a general note saying that most Lt-Governors were of the same party as the Governor, with specific notes against the 3 or 4 where that wasn't the case. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've put that in, that's not a bad idea. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One way round it would be to have a general note saying that most Lt-Governors were of the same party as the Governor, with specific notes against the 3 or 4 where that wasn't the case. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead would it be desirable to wikilink the various Delaware constitutions that are mentioned (assuming that there are articles for each - I haven't checked)?
- That's a good idea, though the articles for the constitutions are pretty weak. On a side note, to be frank, Delaware's lack of historical presence online is embarassing. They are the first state, they have a very old history, yet they had zero resources online for me to use for this list. Even the old Constitutions, I had to find through Google Books.
- I am happy with the changes you have made here, and you're right about those articles. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the other offices held table the governors name column is sorted (incorrectly unfortunately) but the names are not sortable in the main table. Is there a reason for this?
- Because several use rowspans to illustrate they had more than one lieutenant governor; last I checked, rowspans break the sortable table.
- Oh yes that's a very annoying restriction if that could ever be fixed then a lot of tables could be improved throughout Wikipedia. The sort order on the "other offices" table still needs fixing though. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 07:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes that's a very annoying restriction if that could ever be fixed then a lot of tables could be improved throughout Wikipedia. The sort order on the "other offices" table still needs fixing though. Boissière (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible to put in a short explanation of the "No parties" attribution? Was there genuinely no partisan politics or was it a constitutional restriction (or perhaps a gentleman's agreement)?
- I can't really source it at all, except that no source supplies party identification for the first nine. So I have no explanation. My only guess is, yes, that early in American politics there were at best loose factions rather than organized parties. There was no constitutional restriction. --Golbez (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boissière (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're mostly right, Golbez, historians date the beginning of the first political parties in the United States to 1792, when the split between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson led to the development of the Federalist Party and Democratic-Republican Party. Between 1787 and 1792 there was a split between two other groups (not parties) who called themselves Federalists (not quite the same as the later political party, these are people who supported ratification of the Constitution, hence the Federalist Papers) and Anti-Federalists (who opposed ratification), but that split was not really the creation of the party system. It might be helpful to add two notes, if you can find the sources, one for all of the people without parties explaining that parties did not exist yet, and one for the last two that gives their affiliation in the ratification debates. My guess is that in the latter note both of them were supporters of the Constitution - Delaware is known as the First State because it was the first to ratify the constitution. End history lecture. Geraldk (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another fantastic Gov list from Golbez! Reywas92Talk 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A great list, and I only have one query. Is it common for partial terms to be referred to as "halves", "thirds" etc? The notes accompanying these fractions are without exception excellent, and if that's the convention then it's fine by me, but it just strikes me as a little odd to use fractions. WFCforLife (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the system we've come up with to signify which governors shared elected terms amongst each other. I don't know if it's 'common' outside Wikipedia, it's just an illustrative tool others came up with here. --Golbez (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's more personal curiousity than something which detracts from the list. I'm supporting even if you don't do this. But perhaps a (less cumbersome) note to the effect of "1/2 signifies that Governor was one of two governors to serve during this term, 1/3 signifies that governor was one of three governors to serve during this term." would be a useful addition? I think fractions are a clever solution, but if it's a wikipedia-devised system then I think we should explain it. WFCforLife (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I get it now. We have a standard note for the Terms column; I forgot to place it in this one. :) Adding it now... --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I get it now. We have a standard note for the Terms column; I forgot to place it in this one. :) Adding it now... --Golbez (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it's more personal curiousity than something which detracts from the list. I'm supporting even if you don't do this. But perhaps a (less cumbersome) note to the effect of "1/2 signifies that Governor was one of two governors to serve during this term, 1/3 signifies that governor was one of three governors to serve during this term." would be a useful addition? I think fractions are a clever solution, but if it's a wikipedia-devised system then I think we should explain it. WFCforLife (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text comment The alt text is decent, but some of it is too short and non-descriptive. For example, what is a "nineteenth-century man"? I'm not asking for every detail, but a little more on their appearance would help. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit to not understanding quite how to implement alt text for maps and simple portraits; I merely copied the style from my most recently promoted list. --Golbez (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I improved the alt text a bit. It's not the best, but it does the job. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [28].
- Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and while there are many baseball related featured lists, few involve 19th century teams. Rlendog (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that one in the caption. It's no longer a dab link. Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from NMajdan |
|---|
|
Comments
—NMajdan•talk 14:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support.—NMajdan•talk 14:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Mm40 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Mm40 (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments, Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also made some minor fixes of my own. After these issues are resolved, I'll gladly support. Mm40 (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Note on alt text The alt text is well done, except for one detail: phrases about the provenance of the image are unnecessary (e.g. "black and white photo"). The baseball card phrase is fine though. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the "#" is over-explained—there's a footnote about it as well as a row in the key explaining it. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I think I have addressed them. I admit I am surprised about the alt text comment (this is my first FLC since that became an issue). I would have thought that whether something was a black and white photo or a color photo would be important in describing the image. But I am fine taking it out. I guess I have some work to do on a couple of other lists that included this in the alt text. Rlendog (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. By the way, the Hall of Fame link now works properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from KV5
"when it was considered a Major League from 1882 through 1891" - de-capitalize major league- A
n explanation of "player-manager" in the lead would be nice so that readers don't have to leave the article, especially since this is from the era when player-managers were both relevant and common.
All in all, well done. Clarification of these two issues will allow me to support this list. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I took care of the capitalization issue. For the "player-manager" issue, I did not want to sidetrack the narrative with a defintion (which is relatively self-explanatory) so I added a comment that Clarke played as a Colonels' outfielder while he served as their manager. See if this works. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perfect. Wholehearted support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 21:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I took care of the capitalization issue. For the "player-manager" issue, I did not want to sidetrack the narrative with a defintion (which is relatively self-explanatory) so I added a comment that Clarke played as a Colonels' outfielder while he served as their manager. See if this works. Rlendog (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a dead link; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like they just changed that link on me. I updated it. Rlendog (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The HOF is going through a site revamp right now; thus, every link from that site at the moment is now dead. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:02, 14 November 2009 [32].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this list is the partner to Premier League Player of the Month, which is currently pretty well supported at FLC. The reason I'm bringing it here now is because I believe the other list may have been promoted had there been closures, and also I know I'm going to be busy in a couple of weeks so hopefully, by nominating this now, it will be wrapped up or not require much work by then. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question - when you sort by year, is it possible for it then sort the months either in ascending or descending order? Otherwise I'd combine the year and the month so it sorted properly forwards or backwards chronologically. Also, that lead image caption is going to be out of date in, what, two or three weeks? Not sure it's worth it... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is (Help:Sorting#Secondary key). That's why they are seperate, and also Struway2 commented at the Players FLC that it was clearer with them separate. Wrt the lead caption, I don't think it makes a difference seeing as the rest of the article will need updating, but I'll remove it anyway. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what I meant was, when you sort by year, could the months automatically sort into the right ascending or descending order? Otherwise it's a little odd.... (or it could just be, once again, my browser...) A little like sorting Olympic medals tables, 1 gold is worth more than 100 silvers, so when sorting by total I'd expect to see gold winners above silver and silver winners above bronze. You get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand now, do you mean you want be to put in a sortkey like {{sort|1993.1|[[1993–94 FA Premier League|1993]]}} etc. for the years so they have a underlying month attached to them. Also do you also want me to do this for the players FLC? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think that's it. An example, if I list per descending year, I want to 2009 September, followed by 2009 August then 2009 July. Works? And yeah, do it for the other list too. Surprised I didn't notice it there, but it's been a long week. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand now, do you mean you want be to put in a sortkey like {{sort|1993.1|[[1993–94 FA Premier League|1993]]}} etc. for the years so they have a underlying month attached to them. Also do you also want me to do this for the players FLC? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what I meant was, when you sort by year, could the months automatically sort into the right ascending or descending order? Otherwise it's a little odd.... (or it could just be, once again, my browser...) A little like sorting Olympic medals tables, 1 gold is worth more than 100 silvers, so when sorting by total I'd expect to see gold winners above silver and silver winners above bronze. You get my drift? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All redirects can be fixable. You can use User:Splarka/dabfinder.js to find them, which finds redirects and dabs. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. There are no dabs and replacing redirects is "an unhelpful exercise". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh... I just thought that some people would might want to know what GBP is before clicking the link. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is fair enough and I've fixed it. I didn't know what redirects you were talking about because you can obviously identify them with that tool. Not having the tool I thought you might have been talking about player names redirecting to diacratics or fuller names, and I didn't really fancy clicking on them all to find out. If there are any examples like the GDP please point them out, and apologies if I was a bit "bitey" in my original reply. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my comment not having enough clarification. After checking the article again, the only redirects left are the names of players and cities, so ehh... I won't support the nomination, as I only had one comment. I will probably come back to review the article again, so I'll just leave this open. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is fair enough and I've fixed it. I didn't know what redirects you were talking about because you can obviously identify them with that tool. Not having the tool I thought you might have been talking about player names redirecting to diacratics or fuller names, and I didn't really fancy clicking on them all to find out. If there are any examples like the GDP please point them out, and apologies if I was a bit "bitey" in my original reply. Best, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh... I just thought that some people would might want to know what GBP is before clicking the link. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps. WFCforLife (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that counting it as half an award would have been wrong. FWIW I've cross checked the smaller tables with the big table, and as far as I can tell they are all consistent now. Here are a few things I spotted on closer inspection. Some of these things may in fact be right and the questions more for my benefit, but it's worth asking anyway:
I think that's everything. WFCforLife (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- All those responses are fine to me. As I said, some of them were for my benefit more than anything else. In that case I'm happy to support, with the caveat that if someone disagrees with your responses to my second set of comments, appropriate action is taken. Well done, it's a pretty good list! WFCforLife (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Nice list that meets FL standards. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comments (pathetic, as they may be...)
- Caption has 'twenty-four', not convinced why this shouldn't just be 24.
- I feel as it is directly along side the prose, it is comparablie quantity. If not it is just my preference - WP:ORDINAL: "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words"
- No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel as it is directly along side the prose, it is comparablie quantity. If not it is just my preference - WP:ORDINAL: "may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words"
- Oh, and I suspect it's missing a "the"...? Done
- Not sure (probably discussed) that the next version of MOTM needs to be in bold. Perhaps italics?
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Being fairly slow today. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have two bold titles in the lead. I'm just wondering if the second "bold" name for the list could be better (i.e. more MOS-compliantly) done in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MoS: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to self: re-read MOS periodically..................... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MoS: "If the subject of the page has ... more than one name, ... each additional name should be in boldface on its first appearance." Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have two bold titles in the lead. I'm just wondering if the second "bold" name for the list could be better (i.e. more MOS-compliantly) done in italics? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are talking about. Being fairly slow today. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you "prove" the managers who are current are, well, current? (once again, I had someone query this before on the PL hat-tricks list I did...)
- You've said this before, but seeing as they all walked up and down the touchline for the latest Premier League fixtures three days ago I just don't see the point in raking out a source from each club website stating that they are the current managers. I waste enough time on here as it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I know. Sorry. It annoyed me too. I just wanted to put it out there so no-one could accuse me of not passing on the message. As they say, don't shoot the stoopid TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologise, I thought I'd put in a bit about me knowing that this wasn't really a desire of yours. Obviously I forgot, and it made it seem as I was getting at you, which I really wasn't. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you could change it to something unambiguous, such as "Managers who have managed in the Premier League during the 2009-10 season". As annoying as the comment was (I also fell foul of it at a recent FLC), there is a valid point; content tends to get updated less frequently once it becomes featured, and by extension "current" is that bit more likely to be out of date. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately lack of updating featured content won't be a problem here, as I'm going to have to update it every month. I see the point, but if we can have "most recent recipient", why can't we have "current" whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing unfortunate about the list remaining up to date ;) I agree with you, I'm happy with "current", just trying to explain the other POV. WFCforLife (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately lack of updating featured content won't be a problem here, as I'm going to have to update it every month. I see the point, but if we can have "most recent recipient", why can't we have "current" whatever. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you could change it to something unambiguous, such as "Managers who have managed in the Premier League during the 2009-10 season". As annoying as the comment was (I also fell foul of it at a recent FLC), there is a valid point; content tends to get updated less frequently once it becomes featured, and by extension "current" is that bit more likely to be out of date. WFCforLife (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to apologise, I thought I'd put in a bit about me knowing that this wasn't really a desire of yours. Obviously I forgot, and it made it seem as I was getting at you, which I really wasn't. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I know. Sorry. It annoyed me too. I just wanted to put it out there so no-one could accuse me of not passing on the message. As they say, don't shoot the stoopid TRM. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've said this before, but seeing as they all walked up and down the touchline for the latest Premier League fixtures three days ago I just don't see the point in raking out a source from each club website stating that they are the current managers. I waste enough time on here as it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any suitable link for "caretaker manager" should it be a tricky one for non-English readers? Done
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text comment The alt text is pretty good, but phrases such as "An upper body photograph" should not mention that the picture is a photograph; just say "The upper body of". Similarly, "A head-and-upper-torso photograph" could be "The head and upper torso of", and "A photograph of a grey haired, bald man" could be simply "A grey-haired, bald man". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 11 November 2009 (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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [36].
- Nominator(s): – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One quick point before I look in depth - I would suggest that the current title is confusing and that the word "club" should be replaced by "opponent".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these help get you started. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Well done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Thats all for now. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support with all comments addressed. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Otherwise excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment
|
Comments
- Notes column looks really silly with cells only on some lines - could it be changed so that every line has a cell in this column?
- Columns with numbers in (including seasons) should be centre-justified
Looks good other than that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks alright now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional support – Assuming the Statto site tis found reliable, it appears to be a very strong list. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, the data for Statto comes from Tony Brown, a prominent British football statistician; this is confirmed here. I also said above that Tony Brown's Soccerdata company published The Definitive Luton Town F.C. and many other books of that ilk; this can be confirmed here (and his publication of The Definitive Luton Town F.C. here). – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 20:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No one seems to be making an issue of the site, so in the absence of knowledge of soccer data sites, I'm forced to lean on the views of the others here. Switching to full support. Giants2008 (17–14) 03:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- Should the unlinked clubs (Abertillery etc} not be redlinked? Struway2 (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left them unlinked because I don't think they'd be notable (only ever rose as high as Southern League Second Division)... Still, what's your opinion on 'em? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clubs which have played in the Southern League are generally considered notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As are clubs which have played in the FA Cup, which they all have, except possibly Treharris, assuming it's a different club from Treharris Athletic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. It's done. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 08:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As are clubs which have played in the FA Cup, which they all have, except possibly Treharris, assuming it's a different club from Treharris Athletic. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clubs which have played in the Southern League are generally considered notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left them unlinked because I don't think they'd be notable (only ever rose as high as Southern League Second Division)... Still, what's your opinion on 'em? – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 22:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This FLC is flagged as still needing reviews so here are some further comments. In my view the list is largely there with just a few niggles
- You shouldn't use italics to denote the defunct clubs for both MOS and accessibility reasons. You should denote these clubs with a superscripted character (e.g. asterisk).
- The fact that you haven't wikilinked the season when a club was only an opponent in one season looks a bit odd and arguably is not correct because the column is sortable.
- Some people might quibble that their relegation last season wasn't directly due to the points deduction (i.e if they had played a bit better they could have avoided it) which the lead implies. Perhaps adding the word "largely" might be an idea.
As I said above this is almost there. Boissière (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the first point, OK, done. On the second, yes, the column is sortable, but it will always be next to the same season directly to its left in the "first" column, which will be linked; that is why it is as it is. Thirdly, if my memory serves, without the thirty-point deduction, Luton would have finished 15th; therefore, it was the point deductions that relegated Luton, as had they not been there, then Luton would not have been relegated. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 08:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not coming back to this sooner. I am happy with the changes made for my first point. The other two are not a big deal (for the second item I understood why it was done like that - my point was that it just looked a bit odd for occasional black seasons amongst a sea of blue - but as said it's not a big deal). Boissière (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hassocks5489
|
|---|
|
Comments from Hassocks – very sorry to come so late to this; I had been meaning to do a review for some time, but have only been around intermittently recently. Little is needed to improve this: as well as being very encyclopaedic and ideally suited to an online environment, this sort of list is endlessly fascinating for stat-heads like me. Did you know you have never won a home game against Wigan Athletic in five attempts, but you've won 13 of 15 against Torquay United at home? (Oh – we don't have an article on bogey team.) The ease of finding facts like that makes this very powerful. Anyway: Lead
Key
The table itself
|
In summary, very close to being able to support. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Support – everything looks good. First sentence flows nicely with the extra comma. Nice work. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 08:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done, except for the first sentence in which I have merely added a comma. – Cliftonianthe orangey bit 07:47, 4 November 2009 (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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [43].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second MLB award nomination. Second paragraph needs to be referenced, but I'm not that good at finding sources. Copy-edits can go directly to article. Thanks! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks in good position, and it meets FL Criteria. Good Job.BLUEDOGTN 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Only, thing that I see that needs to be addressed is the subcaptioned part of the pictures like the first one is done. This must be accomplished by the nominator. Have a nice day.BLUEDOGTN 01:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
|---|
|
Support Geraldk (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regarding link changes
User:TMC1982 has changed the team links several times to link to team seasons instead of the franchise page, in opposition to consensus. I have attempted to start a discussion on the talk page, but I would appreciate the help of reviewers, as this may cause a stability issue in the article that could cause it to fail FLC. Thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone fixed it! :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comment – While copy-editing, I ran across a sentence that is in no way cited by the given reference: "Eleven of the thirteen World Series MVPs to have won from 1997 onward are still active in MLB—Scott Brosius and Curt Schilling are the World Series MVPs from that period that are not currently active." If it's important to have the active players noted in the table, consider citing their Baseball-Reference pages in the table and removing the cite in the overview section. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Did your original suggestion. Hope you support already! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – Good list overall that meets FL standards. Once the ref fixes were made, my lone remaining concern was stability, but the page activity appears to have settled down in the last day or so. The only other thing I would suggest is that the Cole Hamels and Hideki Matsui photos be swapped to have the most recent winner in the lead. This may be the Yankees fan in me, though, so I won't withhold support over it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport Staxringold talkcontribs 03:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold
|
|---|
|
I really don't think those historical overview bits need those long long headers. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
|---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the Win–loss record really needed in the key? Couldn't this link be piped through the "record" in the stats sections where needed? --TorsodogTalk 22:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:00, 6 November 2009 (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 IMatthew 15:05, 11 November 2009 [44].
- Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this article has finally met the FL criteria for discographies. I nominated this article for a peer review few weeks ago and I managed to improve this article the best I could. Decodet (talk) 20:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Resolved comments from Diaa
|
|---|
|
- Support After all the improvements and efforts the list is imo of Featured quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave the reliability of Zobbel.de for other reviewers to comment about.
- What's the difference between singles and other appearances? Shouldn' "Kiss the Girl", "Headstrong" and "Overrated" be in the Singles table? The same goes for Sharpay Evans section.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Headstrong" and "Overrated" are not official singles. The first one was released as a radio promo and the second as a digital promo. "Kiss the Girl" is a soundtrack single but it's not one of her main singles. Decodet (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please indicate this in the list somehow. Either through a note or an intro sentence... Why are the notes over sharpay Evans? Why not after it?
- Comment: "Headstrong" and "Overrated" are not official singles. The first one was released as a radio promo and the second as a digital promo. "Kiss the Girl" is a soundtrack single but it's not one of her main singles. Decodet (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate IRMA.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Done. Decodet (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
What makes aCharts a reliable source?If "He Said She Said" was never released, why is it included in the discography?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: aCharts is a good archive for multiple charts according to WP:CHARTS. About "He Said She Said", just removed it from the videography section. Apparently someone added it yesterday and I did not note it. Decodet (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acharts is usually discouraged, due to their publishing of multiple deprecated charts and lack of third party coverage. For Australia, use http://australian-charts.com/ and for Ireland use http://irish-charts.com/. Simple to change. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Kiac (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on this? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acharts is usually discouraged, due to their publishing of multiple deprecated charts and lack of third party coverage. For Australia, use http://australian-charts.com/ and for Ireland use http://irish-charts.com/. Simple to change. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: aCharts is a good archive for multiple charts according to WP:CHARTS. About "He Said She Said", just removed it from the videography section. Apparently someone added it yesterday and I did not note it. Decodet (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
Goodraise 12:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this time, I have to oppose this nomination, mainly because of sourcing issues. Goodraise 02:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Goodraise 13:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Still missing two video directors.
- That table is formatted incorrectly (missing one cell).
- 2006 featured video is not referenced anywhere.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no known directors for "Kiss the Girl" and "Be Good to Me German version", so I've put "Unknown" in the director table. I did not find any reference for the 2006 featutred video. All I've found is the video itself in some not-reliable sources, such as Youtube. About the table, I did not find out what's incorrect with it. Decodet (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2009 (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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [45].
- Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that is close to being at Featured list standard. NapHit (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The point system mentioned at the prose is the current point system. I believe that in the older years the point system were different. I haven't had time to confirm this and find a reference, but I think it should be noted that the point systems weren't always the same. Other than that, it's a great list, good job on completing the list of champions to complement the previous FLs (250cc and MotoGP). — Martin tamb (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted this, added a sentence to clarify. Thanks for the shout-out, still got the 350cc, and 50/80cc to come yet, as well as an overall list of winners. NapHit (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great list, meets FL criteria. — Martin tamb (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt text while limited looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"historically, there have been a number of different points system's." Remove apostrophe from last word.Why is there an empty Refs column in the table? Having a large empty row makes the appearance less appealing.Giants2008 (17–14) 16:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done NapHit (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Other than the couple of addressed comments, I found the list to be very good when I first read it. With no further comments, I see no reason not to support. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Made a few tweaks, but otherwise another good list motorcycling racing list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. I only noticed one thing, and that was "Great Britain riders". It just sounds wrong, but I'm not sure if it is. "Riders from Great Britain" is ok though. Support Matthewedwards : Chat 03:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Is there a reason why Gilera aren't included in the constructors table?
- I count 14 individual Italian winners, lead and table say 13.
- The key may need some clarification that the rider won the other championship in the same season.
--Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I count 13, done the other requests. NapHit (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also count 14 individual Italian winners (Bianchi, Cadalora, Capirossi, Dovizioso, Gramigni, Gresini, Lazzarini, Locatelli, Pagani, Pileri, Provini, Rossi, Ruffo and Ubbiali), fixed the lead and the table. — Martin tamb (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Done all requests. NapHit (talk) 22:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just a minor comment, are Morbidelli and MBA the same constructors? Perhaps a note should explain why are they considered the same constructor or a note that explains Morbidelli's total win of 5 includes 2 wins as MBA. — Martin tamb (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or probably you should split MBA and Morbidelli as two separate constructors, Morbidelli with 3 wins and MBA with 2 wins. From Morbidelli's article, it mentions that MBA (Morbidelli-Benelli-Armi) bikes was produced in a separate factory and was helped by Benelli. In my opinion, they were two different companies producing different bikes. MBA was more like a joint venture between Morbidelli and Benelli. — Martin tamb (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've split Morbidelli and MBA win totals, because all the reference I found does not recognize them as the same constructor. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems to be a well constructed list, also well researched, no obvious blatant errors that I can see. --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2009 (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 IMatthew 16:47, 7 November 2009 [46].
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am re-nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and all concerns from the previous nomination have been addressed. In regards to the discussion on the HURDAT source, there is an article available on reading it located here. All comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Resolved comments from Geraldk
|
|---|
|
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comment The images need alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless im going blind they all have it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently are going blind, most didn't have it :P I've added the alt text to all images now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the alt text link in the toolbox one more time. The Hurricane Emily pic does not have alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I was asked to look at the satellite images' alt text. It looks good, except please omit repetition of the caption and/or details that a nonexpert won't know (typically these are the same thing). The phrases I saw that need removal from alt text are "Tropical Storm Dennis" and "Hurricane Arlene". Eubulides (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the alt text link in the toolbox one more time. The Hurricane Emily pic does not have alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You apparently are going blind, most didn't have it :P I've added the alt text to all images now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless im going blind they all have it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm comfortable supporting now. A couple minor notes, though. For the June subsection, it's a little odd that the explanation that there was no activity looks like it's in the June 1 sub-sub-section. I don't know if there's anyway to fix that within the bounds of your project's syntax for these timelines, but wanted to point it out. Also, I can't figure out why, but in the wikilink to HURDAT in the ref, the preceding parenthesis is part of the title link, rather than simply enclosing the link, such that the title reads, "Atlantic Hurricane Best Track Database (". Anyone know how to fix that? Geraldk (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
File:Eye of Hurricane Emily 1987.jpg requires alt text.Ref. 4 is not actually a reference. Remove it or incorporate it into the article in another way.
Image licensing seems fine. Sources look good. Goodraise 17:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the alt text and changed ref. 4 to a note. Thanks for the review Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1987 Atlantic hurricane season was a below-average season" - What does that mean?"This season had fourteen tropical" - Make it "The season had fourteen tropical"A few more internal links would be nice in the lead.
Goodraise 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Links added, specified what a below average season is and made the minor fix Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image licensing and alt text seems fine. Sources look good. I can support this nomination. Good work. Goodraise 18:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
" - swap pipe for semi-colon!
Otherwise very good. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
"$80.3 million (1987 USD, $154.2 million in 2009 USD)" Use {{inflation}} instead so that you don't have to constantly update this figure.
- I cant figure out how to add it in and make it look tidyJason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the template Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I cant figure out how to add it in and make it look tidyJason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AST needs a link in the timeline.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- its already linked Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [47].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was sitting on this nomination for a little while given the FLC nomination freeze, but Dabomb has now lifted that (hence my starting this up while 30 Rock (season 3) is still going). Yes it is a short list with only 10 award winners so far, but IMO it meets all the criteria including comprehensiveness. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
Will return with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
|---|
|
Comment - Could explain more about the voting process. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Would probably comment again tomorrow (no school tomorrow!). Thanks for fixing up the voting section! -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
Support – Meets FL standards after the fixes. Giants2008 (17–14) 02:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no major issues that I see. —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images: Licensing looks fine and alt text is provided. Goodraise 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources: Sources are formated properly and seem to be reliable. Goodraise 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
More later. Goodraise 03:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose for now. Goodraise 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
It is my pleasure to support this nomination. Goodraise 05:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Note MM-DD-YYYY is not a format used on Wikipedia; please use YYYY-MM-DD or a format with the month spelled out. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CITE#HOW: "There are a number of citation styles. They all include the same information but vary in punctuation and the order of the author's name, publication date, title, and page numbers. Any of these styles is acceptable on Wikipedia so long as each article is internally consistent." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DATE#Dates: "YYYY-MM-DD style dates (1976-05-31) are uncommon in English prose." I find absolutely no policy that says what you are saying. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That citation style note doesn't really apply here, except for consistency. I was referring to the references, which are not prose. "11-01-2009" is a prime example of why we don't use these formats (is it November 1 or 11 January?), because they are ambiguous.
- Also, see "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous (it could refer to 3 April or to March 4)." This applies here, as MM-DD-YYYY is the same as MM/DD/YYYY (or DD/MM/YYYY), but with hyphens instead of slashes. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is YYYY-MM-DD any less ambiguous on those dates than MM-DD-YYYY. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, I changed the style. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Why no ref in the second paragraph?
- For all these baseball lists, information that in the lead simply summing up what's said in the table generally isn't ref'd. I'll find one for the Carpenter 04 Comeback win, though.
- Why no lead image?
- What would it be? I know of no trophy (and certainly no trophy image) and all the winners are listed below. If someone had an image of one of the players clearly pre-Comeback (like when sent down to a minor league team or walking off the field injured or something) that might be useful, but beyond that dunno what to use. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do the ESPN refs say "ESPN" twice in a row?
- They don't, one is the work and one is the publisher. This is Goodraise's work. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major League Baseball" and "ESPN" only need to be linked once in the refs.
- This is how I've done up several baseball lists before it. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean it's right. BUC (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't but why not err on the side of slightly overlinking so someone browsing the site can easily check up on the refs rather than underlink and cut into that simplicity? Staxringold talkcontribs 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no right way, as long as it's consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if this list is long enough to be a FL. But if it has gotten this far in prob is.
- WP:FL? criteria 3 (Comprehensiveness) requires only that the list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" (which it does) and "meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists" (which it does). Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, List of Arizona Diamondbacks Opening Day starting pitchers or List of Tampa Bay Rays seasons. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and won the Rays' first" weren't they still the Devil Rays back then?
- Right you are, fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW "sponsorship agreement between MLB and Viagra" lol is that because the winners are generally old! BUC (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback".
Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's partially a play on the term "comeback".
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 15:34, 7 November 2009 [48].
I am nominating this for featured list because it certainly meets the FLC criteria. Its been in FLC before but failed to pass because of lack of reviews. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Prose is like a bunch of dot points strewn together, particular with the repeated "He/His" sentence starts. Also the 201 in Galle needs a special mention, as it was named the Wisden Performance of the year, and carrying his bat, which broke some record(s). Also, is it uncommon to have only 3 victories in 15 centuries? This may be a reflection of most of them being on pretty flat pitches, or India's bowling being toothless (usually both) resulting in a stack of draws. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What should I say about the Galle innings?
- As long as there are citations for that :P SGGH ping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CEntury on debut? Only one century in the second innings, none in runchases. Why is this disparity not mentioned? It's a very famous part of Sehwag's record. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He has 3 centuries in innings 3 or 4. Its not really that relevant mentioning victories I guess. And I do say "In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"
- Also, didn't he break a few records for hitting a lot of fours and sixes in some of these triple centuries?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, doesn't he have the highest % of boundaries out of modern players? Or something along those lines. One series 5 years ago he scored 80% of runs from fours. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, didn't he break a few records for hitting a lot of fours and sixes in some of these triple centuries?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its very hard to cite facts like that: [49] is the only link I could find, and it dosen't mention anything particularly notable.
Thanks For you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- Opening sentence is, well, so practical that it is flat.
- It might be basic, but it introduces the topic so non-cricket readers are not immersed in cricket terminology from the start. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Opening sentence is, well, so practical that it is flat.
- I've changed it without adding any more terms. SGGH ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has too many choppy sentences, and not enough flow.
- The lead does have good information, however.
- I know.. I tried to fix it earlier as well, and this is the best I could do.
- Of the tables, why is there no column for which Test of Sehwag's career it was? i.e. 5th Test, 23rd Test etc. I would have thought this would be useful information, helping to show particular runs of form or drought, and how many consecutive centuries there are.
- The dates for the Tests are mentioned
- I think an article on his centuries should perhaps have a shade more information on the man's career debut date, the date of his first century in the lead, things like that.
- I menton " In 2001, he became the eleventh Indian player to score a century on Test debut, with 105 runs against South Africa"
- Also, please replace the external link with {{cricinfo|ref=india/content/player/35263.html|name=Virender Sehwag}} ***Done SGGHping! 10:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for you comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorted. Cheers. SGGH ping! 13:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - *You could probably say how he has scored 150+ in his last eight or so centuries (I think). You'll need to find a source though. Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do say that: "His last 11 centuries have been scores of 150 or greater, a record for the most consecutive hundreds of over 150."
- "He has been dismissed three times between 90 and 100 runs, and has made five scores of 200 runs or more, the most by an Indian opener, of which a record three have come against Pakistan." Is the sentence a bit long? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That part of the lead has gone through several edits, and that was found to be the best way to say that. Abeer.ag (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Tough one to review. There are no major faults that I can find, but I also notice the choppy nature of the lead. It's difficult to offer solid advice on this, but mixing up the beginnings of more sentences may help. Also, I wish the alt text for the graph had some description of the figures in the graph, since that would be of great benefit to those with screen readers. Giants2008 (17–14) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the alt text for that should at least mention that the graph runs from 2001 through 2009, that there are peaks in early 2004 and early 2008 (and perhaps the value of those peaks), and that the moving average goes up and down around 50 for most of his career; that sort of thing. The current alt text leaves the visually impaired reader in the dark. Eubulides (talk) 05:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Thank You Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comments Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Comments
"MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chennai, where Sehwag got his highest score, 319 versus South Africa." ... reached his highest score, 319 versus South Africa? Aaroncrick (talk) 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a comma. Thank you. Abeer.ag (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak> Support - Nice work Aaroncrick (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose still nothing happening on the discussion of some of the notable things about Sehwag's centuries YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abeer.ag added bit about scores of 150, however, I doubt there are refs for the other issues. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added some data. Abeer.ag (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Like mentioned by Aaroncrick above, "He has been dismissed between 90....come against Pakistan." is too long and should be split. Also, ref 6 is really a note, so it should probably be split off from the references.- Changed
Double referencing - #1 and #2 don't say anything different, so either should suffice for the first paragraph. Likewise #8, #9. In both cases, the reference quality isn't questionable, so is there a reason for adding the extra reference?- 8 & 9 cite different things; #1 and 2 are the result of a discussion on a previous FLC, its so that not all references are from Cricinfo.
The three sentences from "His highest score of 130..." to "...coming from 60 deliveries" should be consolidated to two and the reference to New Zealand strengthened.- Changed.
This is more of a stylistic preference, but should "between 90 and 100" be replaced by "in the nineties"?- Done
-SpacemanSpiff 01:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your comments. Abeer.ag (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I didn't notice the other comment. How do I do that? Or should I just remove it? Abeer.ag (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has YellowMonkey been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add the info that the 254 v Pak in Jan 2006 was the largest score at 100+ SR? Also the fact that it was in a 400-run partnership and went with 4-5 of breaking hte WR by Roy and Mankad in the 1950s YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the second part;not sure about what you mean by the first part; his 319 also had a SR>100. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 254 was off about 250 balls or something and was the record until the 319 broke it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit about the 319 being the largest. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YellowMonkey himself added the other stuff as well. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a bit about the 319 being the largest. Abeer.ag (talk) 00:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The 254 was off about 250 balls or something and was the record until the 319 broke it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the second part;not sure about what you mean by the first part; his 319 also had a SR>100. Abeer.ag (talk) 05:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you add the info that the 254 v Pak in Jan 2006 was the largest score at 100+ SR? Also the fact that it was in a 400-run partnership and went with 4-5 of breaking hte WR by Roy and Mankad in the 1950s YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - concerns have been addressed. -SpacemanSpiff 01:07, 3 November 2009 (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: