Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Freedom Award/archive1
- 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 00:09, 21 May 2010 [1].
Freedom Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I took it looking like this and expanded it approximately sevenfold, with illustrations, sortable table, infobox and reliable sourcing. Thanks for your time and efforts in any reviews you make. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aung San Suu Kyi shouldn't have a flag and a link to Burkina Faso next to her name. 78.84.9.164 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was one heck-of-an-oversight. Good spot. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
More later. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Arsenikk (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments:
Finally a chance to get back at the vigorous reviews from TRM :P
Overall nice, simple, yet elegant list. Arsenikk (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Arsenikk (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support - looks good to me, though the images are difficult to see imo.—Chris!c/t 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've increased them all to 75px, is it better? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, better.—Chris!c/t 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all looks good to me. If the IRC don't publish specific rationales as to why they have given each award, I don't see how the absence thereof from the article can be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- at above link the IRC states that Bush & Clinton were given the award for their contribution during the Katrina Hurricane incident. Isn't that useful information somehow? Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one indirect citation from a list of dozens. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A compromise? I've removed a reliable secondary source (the United Nations) and replaced it with your particular reference for Clinton/Bush. Since that's the only source with a kind-of citation, I can see no more I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No I don't care much for the source if they're of equal reliability, I'd just like the information as to why they won the award. But since other editors don't care for it I've dropped the matter.Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A compromise? I've removed a reliable secondary source (the United Nations) and replaced it with your particular reference for Clinton/Bush. Since that's the only source with a kind-of citation, I can see no more I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one indirect citation from a list of dozens. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- at above link the IRC states that Bush & Clinton were given the award for their contribution during the Katrina Hurricane incident. Isn't that useful information somehow? Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.