Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2009
Contents
- 1 List of QI episodes
- 2 List of Silver Slugger Award winners at first base
- 3 Big East Conference Men's Basketball Player of the Year
- 4 Disturbed discography
- 5 List of members of the Gregorian mission
- 6 List of Houston Rockets statistics and records
- 7 List of Mexican National Heavyweight Champions
- 8 List of National Monuments of the United States
- 9 Veronica Mars (season 1)
- 10 Silver Slugger Award
- 11 List of Megadeth band members
- 12 List of United States Naval Academy alumni
- 13 List of Yukon Quest competitors
- 14 List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Legislators)
- 15 List of St. Louis Blues head coaches
- 16 BBC Sports Personality Team of the Year Award
- 17 List of Scotland international footballers
- 18 List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2005 (U.S.)
- 19 Houston Rockets seasons
- 20 List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2006 (U.S.)
- 21 List of Calgary Flames draft picks
- 22 List of awards and nominations received by Dexter
- 23 List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government
- 24 List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions
- 25 List of Oh My Goddess! episodes
- 26 M.I.A. discography
- 27 List of Governors of Connecticut
- 28 List of individual National Basketball Association scoring leaders
- 29 List of Popotan episodes
- 30 Ed Chynoweth Cup
- 31 Ashlee Simpson discography
- 32 Rufus Wainwright discography
- 33 List of Vancouver Canucks captains
- 34 List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations)
- 35 List of Olympic medalists in speed skating
- 36 List of Philadelphia Phillies no-hitters
- 37 List of winners of the Chicago Marathon
- 38 Arnold Schwarzenegger filmography
- 39 List of Los Angeles Kings head coaches
- 40 List of Cincinnati Reds managers
- 41 List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts)
- 42 List of Pittsburgh Penguins head coaches
- 43 System of a Down discography
- 44 List of awards and nominations received by Scissor Sisters
- 45 Yeah Yeah Yeahs discography
- 46 List of Numb3rs episodes
- 47 List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2002 (U.S.)
- 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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [1].
I am nominating this for featured list because this list covers every single episode of QI, including who was on each episode, who won each episode, names and dates. The introduction to the episode is comprehensive and there are no problems with the image as far fair-use rationale are concerned. If promoted, then this will be the first FL to cover a quiz show/panel game. ISD (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a list of episodes of QI" Featured lists don't start like this, see List of 24 episodes for a good example of an opening sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I've changed the opening sentence. ISD (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
23 December 2003 -- don't partially link dates in this way, or use easter eggs. You could say in the lead, that "QI premiered in 2003" or something, not perfect, but betterHas Series G been made yet? If so "N/A" is incorrect in the producer column. Someone produced it, you just don't know who. Because it hasn't actually aired on TV yet, I would remove that row.The "for example" you give about a chameleon; it's unclear whether you're saying that statement is accepted as true but is false, or if it is wrong and pathetically obvious. The colon should be a semicolon, too. Really, from "Conversely" onwards, the paragraph needs rewriting."following the success of a non-broadcast pilot." in what way was it successful?"For example, the first series covered" this shouldn't start a sentence. The previous sentence should "end" with a semicolon, and this sentence should run on from that one"The first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two" ref please"From the second series, BBC Four broadcast the following episode immediately, with the episode being broadcast on BBC Two the following week in its usual slot." This doesn't make sense straight away. What does "immediately" mean? As soon as it was filmed? Something like:From season two onwards, the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately after on BBC Four, which then re-aired the following week on BBC Two. Each subsequent episode premiered on BBC Four immediately after the BBC Two rebroadcast of the previous week's episode."broadcast the following day on BBC Two, replacing the early broadcasts." What early broadcasts? These are previously undiscussed."extended repeat called QI XL" -- "titled"Again, what does "Early broadcast or extended repeat" mean in the main series table?I wouldn't put the "home channel" column, because you've already said that the majority of episodes premiered on BBC 4, and it's just too much info to stick in a single columnWhy not name the producer in the prose, and get rid of that column too?Make sure the guests first and last names don't get put on separate linesBeing picky, but does "Clip show featuring deleted and extended scenes from Series E." belong in the "guests" column?"The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." the original scheduled airdate did? Or the actual airdate?Can you confirm that the Original airdates are for BBC 4 where applicable, and not the airdates for the BBC2 airing?What makes http://www.comedy.org.uk/guide/tv/qi/episodes/ a WP:RS? I've tried to use it before and was told it isn'tdate formats in references should be in dd mmmm yyyy, the same as in the body of the article, and not ISO formatSame link in EL and references
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I have carried out all the changes you asked for. Concerning the use of the BCG as a reliable source, I should first point out that I have used it in other featured lists (see List of Peep Show episodes) and they were accepted. Before an article is created for the site, it must first go through an editor who will check everything is OK. ISD (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know you've already discussed it on the talk page, but I don't think you should list the pilot with Series A; for one thing, it messes up the numbering (Ep 1, Series A is listed as overall ep 2, when it is actually ep 1), and for another the pilot isn't a part of Series A, it was just released on the DVD. They really ought to be separated (or have the pilot removed from the table altogether and just mention it in the lead). Bradley0110 (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: I personally believe that the pilot should be included with the first series. For starters, I've seen other episode lists which have put the pilot along with the first series/season, such as the List of Seinfeld episodes. Also, I believe that the pilot does count as ep 1, as it was the first episode made - it just wasn't the first one broadcast. ISD (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you're just using that as one example, but Seinfeld's pilot was retroactively renumbered S1E1.Bradley0110 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as far as I know, there are no other examples of an FL which includes a non-broadcast pilot. Therefore there is nothing to really compare it with. I still think I am right, but no doubt you will differ. Maybe it is best to mention this on the WP:FLC talk page. ISD (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you, as the primary editor, believe that that is the best format to use, then OK. As for "no doubt you will differ", don't worry, I'm not out to 'get you'! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wasn't trying to offend. I've started a converstion about this on the WP:FLC talk page if you want to go into it further. ISD (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you, as the primary editor, believe that that is the best format to use, then OK. As for "no doubt you will differ", don't worry, I'm not out to 'get you'! Bradley0110 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as far as I know, there are no other examples of an FL which includes a non-broadcast pilot. Therefore there is nothing to really compare it with. I still think I am right, but no doubt you will differ. Maybe it is best to mention this on the WP:FLC talk page. ISD (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you're just using that as one example, but Seinfeld's pilot was retroactively renumbered S1E1.Bradley0110 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- Is the unaired pilot episode a part of the official first series? If so, I think it would be fine to keep it where it is, otherwise it should be listed separately. Also, was it included on the DVD? If not, the first table should be edited
- "The broadcast of this episode was delayed because it ran simultaneously with the Comic Relief telethon." This is confusing. Does "was delayed" mean the originally scheduled airdate was changed and it aired at a later week, or that it aired in a later timeslot? Does "ran simultaneously" mean it actually aired at the same time as Comic Relief? If so, how is that possible? Only one programme can air on a channel at a time, unless they do some split-screen dual broadcasting weirdness
- "This episode was a clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." should probably be an "and" after "clip show"
- "the first series was first broadcast on September 11, 2003 on BBC Two." This sounds like the entire first series aired on the same day
- "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. Instead, an extended repeated titled QI XL was broadcast on BBC Two and was shownthe day after the episode was originally shown on BBC One." --> "As a result, the scheduling of episodes on BBC Four was dropped in favour of an extended repeat broadcast on BBC Two the following day titled QI XL"
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I've carried out your comments. The pilot was released as an extra on the Series A DVD and therefore I believe it to be officially part of the series. ISD (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "which are believe to be obvious" - believed
- "A non-broadcast pilot was first made and well received..." - what is the meaning of "first made" it doesn't really work, maybe you are trying to say that the show was picked up after the BBC responded well to a pilot or something like that.
- "As a result, the broadcasting of episodes immediately afterwards on BBC Four was replaced. As a result, the scheduling" - repetitive "as a result", in fact the first sentence could probably be scrapped.
- Because you have a section for it, I would possibly add another row to the Series box, which says Series G; 16; TBA; N/A
- "This episode was an clip show contained deleted and extended scenes from other episodes in Series E." - an clip show? also missing word between "show contained"
- "replaced in the television schedules" - isn't is just one schedule
Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 11:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I've carried out most of the changes you asked for. The only one I did not to was add another row for Series G. There was a row, but another user, who is also one of the FL directors, told me to remove the row. ISD (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm haven't supported this yet because the prose still needs some work to meet criteria 1 – "professional standards of writing"
- "Between the second and fifth series, the first episode premiered on BBC Two" - so is that just S3 & S4??
- "the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four" - afterwards is BrEng
- Repetition of "immediately afterward on BBC Four" in two sentences that are very close to each other
- "the first episode premiered on BBC Two; the following episode was broadcast immediately afterward on BBC Four, which then re-aired " feels clunky and only strictly mentions the second episode. I'm not a prose expert but something like the episodes were aired each week on BBC Two; the second and subsequent episodes were first shown on BBC Four in time-slot immediately following the previous episodes BBC Two broadcast would probably be better.
Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 10:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comments: I've carried out the improvements you asked for. ISD (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues (includes resolved fair-use image discussion), Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Comment on image I don't think the FU image (File:Quite Interesting logo.png is necessary here; this is only the episode list and the logo is not really needed for identification. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support although I'd still rather see the pilot separated from Series A, if not from the table (which, I concede, would add an unnecessary extra line to the TOC) then at least from the numbering system. Regarding the image problems, I get the impression that you, ISD, have attended some recordings of QI. If you attend any this year, then I'm sure you could arrange to take a photo of at least the empty studio! Bradley0110 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to support: Thanks for supporting. If you want to talk about the tables, there is a thread about it on WT:FLC. As regards to getting a photo of the studio, it would be difficult because the studio prohibits photos taken inside. ISD (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sneaky cameraphone pic? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a cameraphone. ISD (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sneaky cameraphone pic? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [2].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the article criteria. This is article 2 toward a featured topic; for more details on the FT, see my sandbox and scroll to the bottom. I will certainly address any and all concerns. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
|
- Support —Chris! ct 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comment - Very good overall, but I do have one important question right away, particularly in light of recent FLC developments:
|
Support - Scorp has convinced me that the subject is viable, and the list meets all FL standards as I see them. Looks good to go, at least from my vantage point. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - nice list. Dincher (talk) 19:03, 28 March 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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [3].
I came across this article in a very simple form and thought it had potential for featured status. I organized the list, wrote the prose and gathered references and now feel it meets the FL criteria. Grsz11 16:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
—Chris! ct 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support—Chris! ct 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sources
|
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
|
- Support
, though I would still like this stub to be created before promotion. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The symbols should be in the same cells as their corresponding color. Also, can you center the em dashes? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have my comments (the ones right above this comment) been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done now. Grsz11 22:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have my comments (the ones right above this comment) been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The symbols should be in the same cells as their corresponding color. Also, can you center the em dashes? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Only a couple nit-picks, and I look forward to supporting soon.
- "Connecticut and Georgetown have had most winners". Add "the".
- "30 different players from ten schools have received the award". Consider changing ten to 10. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by Dabomb. Grsz11 03:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
|
- Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith, I've reverted the year to the original format. I think the changed style needlessly clutter the table, and didn't eliminate any notes as was your initial suggestion. Grsz11 23:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - good list... some things...
- I know we probably don't have a MOS statement or anything but I much prefer to see citations in numerical order, so would prefer [3][12] over [12][3]...
- "....first given following the conference's first..." repetition of first, can we reword it to be more engaging?
- "Three players have also been awarded a major national Player of the Year award." do you mean three winners of this particular award have also won a national award?
- "...1979 charter member..." unclear exactly what this means to a non-Big East Conf reader.
- "In total, the award has been given 36 times in 30 seasons. As of 2009, 30 different players from 10 schools have received the award, including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen." - the "In total" is also "As of 2009" so rework these two sentences so they're both related to the current year.
- "...including sixteen seniors, twelve juniors, eight sophomores, and no freshmen...." - "including.. no freshmen" reads a little odd to me. I'd just say "made up of sixteen seniors, twelve juniors and eight sophomores."
- Otherwise, it's there. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, I have made these fixes. Grsz11 17:37, 30 March 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 Scorpion0422 17:24, 31 March 2009 [4].
I am nominating this for featured list because... my concerns with the text (regarding the grammar) were corrected at the peer review. Then, I feel that this discography is more prepared to receive your comments. Thanks in advance. Cannibaloki 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 15:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Everything looks good, my only concern is the last sentence. Is it really needed to mention other bands who have reached #1 three times or more? If so, then what about Beatles, MJ, Led Zeppelin, etc. That's unnecessary (genre doesn't count here). Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course! I can only use what is written in the text of the news in which we are using as reference. Hmm? Cannibaloki 04:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Very nice work. One minor concern, does MTV and MTV Networks really need to be linked a dozen times in the references section? You should link it the first time, then not again. -- Scorpion0422 16:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Done. Cannibaloki 17:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- "The band has released three consecutive number-one albums that have charted on the Billboard 200, a feat that also has been accomplished by Van Halen, U2, Metallica, Dave Matthews Band, Staind and System of a Down."—I don't understand this sentence, haven't artist such as The Beatles, Madonna and Michael Jackson (among any number of very popular artistes) done the same? Why have only these specific bands mentioned in the article? indopug (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can not create unpublished syntheses of sourced material, right?
- In the lead #1 should be "number one" and #21 should be "number 21". Per WP:MOSNUM "in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words".
- Interesting... Done.
- "which also featured the bands Taproot, Chevelle, and Ünloco" how is this relevant to a discography?
- Disturbed not recorded this live album alone.
- I think you can remove all the refs for the chart positions and certifications from the lead, since everything is there in the tables.
- Better not.
- Why are Allmusic, iTunes Store and MTV italicised in the references? Websites and TV channels aren't supposed to be.
- {{Cite web}}
- Because the "publisher" parameters are used for the publication companies (e.g. Macrovision for Allmusic), the "work" parameter has to be used for these websites and TV channels. Hence, the italics. Having said that, I don't think "MTV Networks" is necessary in the MTV references. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Cite web}}
- What makes zobbel.de a reliable source? indopug (talk) 16:58, 29 March 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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [5].
I am nominating this for featured list because... I would like to take the topic to Featured Topic, and I feel this list is as well researched as possible given the obscurity of the time period. All comments welcomed! But I'm not a big "list coder" so if you want me to do something fancy with the code of the list, be prepared to help me through it. I'm much more comfortable with FAC and prose and sources than I am with wikimarkup for tables...Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Interesting list btw ;)--Best, ₮RUCӨ 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it really necessary to have a separate List of members of the Gregorian mission? Why not just include the table in the main article when it is such a short one? --Skizzik talk 10:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm trying for a nice featured topic and it's suggested that there be a list article. Also, I find it helpful to have all the information in one spot, as well as the fact that the main article is reasonably lenghty (well into the "split if needed" length). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, where do you got that suggestion from? I think the topic would be a nice one even without the list as a separate article. Including it in the main article seems to be the case in many featured topics when the list is not to long (see for example [6], [7], [8], [9]). Splitting it just to include it in a topic looks a little strange to me, and I don't think the main article is too big. But I guess this is a personal view so do what you think is the best, good job so far anyway! --Skizzik talk 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather keep it separate, as I think it clutters the main article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I look forward to see it on WP:FTC. --Skizzik talk 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather keep it separate, as I think it clutters the main article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, where do you got that suggestion from? I think the topic would be a nice one even without the list as a separate article. Including it in the main article seems to be the case in many featured topics when the list is not to long (see for example [6], [7], [8], [9]). Splitting it just to include it in a topic looks a little strange to me, and I don't think the main article is too big. But I guess this is a personal view so do what you think is the best, good job so far anyway! --Skizzik talk 13:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm trying for a nice featured topic and it's suggested that there be a list article. Also, I find it helpful to have all the information in one spot, as well as the fact that the main article is reasonably lenghty (well into the "split if needed" length). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Minor things, really, because I looked at the article beforehand. It's good stuff, and no, I'm not just saying that because I'm Catholic!
- I made minor prose tweaks rather than comment here, I hope you don't mind.
- Heck, no. My prose needs all the help it can get. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"circa" (c) is a Latin abbreviation, so per MOS:ABBR, it and its abbreviated form should be in italics.
- fixed.Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Canonized?" I don't think the question mark is necessary.
- fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Of the non-archbishops, three were regarded as saints: Peter, James the Deacon, and Paulinus." Correct me if I'm wrong, but one becomes a saint if they are canonized, yes? You say "regarded", which puts doubt into the reader's mind of whether they were actually 100% real deal saints or not. Is there no definite answer?Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prior to about 1050 or so, there was no formal process for canonization. Saints prior to that were just sorta "acclaimed". If enough folks claimed you were a saint, you were a saint. Since all of these guys died before then, most of their "sainthoods" don't have formal processes. The only one that's gone through paperwork is Peter of Canterbury, who went through a process in 1915 that "confirmed" he was a saint. I can throw in a wikilink to the relevant part of canonization that's linked to "regarded". I also changed the verb tense, as they still are regarded as saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for the explanation. The link and verb tense change are good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Prior to about 1050 or so, there was no formal process for canonization. Saints prior to that were just sorta "acclaimed". If enough folks claimed you were a saint, you were a saint. Since all of these guys died before then, most of their "sainthoods" don't have formal processes. The only one that's gone through paperwork is Peter of Canterbury, who went through a process in 1915 that "confirmed" he was a saint. I can throw in a wikilink to the relevant part of canonization that's linked to "regarded". I also changed the verb tense, as they still are regarded as saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good (not that I expected them to be any other way). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You might want to fix the odd sorting on some of those columns - Date of arrival in England and Death date specifically. You can use text with a
display:none
style to achieve that. — neuro(talk) 00:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- HOw do you mean odd sorting? We're dealing with approximate dates here for some of them, someone kindly went through and put in some code that makes them sort close to the approximate date. They now sort the columns correctly according to the dates to my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oop, sorry, mindgoof. For some reason I didn't realise that they had been made to sort independently of what was visible, which was what I was asking for. Ignore me ;) — neuro(talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NO worries. I was just afraid there was something I wasn't seeing that was horribly wrong... it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oop, sorry, mindgoof. For some reason I didn't realise that they had been made to sort independently of what was visible, which was what I was asking for. Ignore me ;) — neuro(talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- HOw do you mean odd sorting? We're dealing with approximate dates here for some of them, someone kindly went through and put in some code that makes them sort close to the approximate date. They now sort the columns correctly according to the dates to my mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bencherlite
|
---|
Just a few minor suggestions:
Otherwise, looking good. BencherliteTalk 13:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. I wonder whether the use of "we" and "us" in the second para of the lead is appropriate, but the alternative may be the passive voice (gasp!) which also has its critics. Anyway, if you can think of another way of phrasing it, please do, but I'm happy to support. (I like the picture you found in particular). BencherliteTalk 20:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I rephrased it. Using personal prounouns is an MOS breach, and more generally, is unencyclopedic. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [10].
- Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)
As a push to get Houston Rockets to be a WP:FT, I am nominating this for FL. I have worked on it to meet, to the best of my knowledge, all criteria of WP:WIAFL.
Also, please note that this article is the first of its kind for the NBA, so I had nothing to base it on, and had to think of everything as I went along. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Nice job, especially for doing it without any model. You may want to add something about it to WP:NBAG.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment I can't find the 22 games winning streak. I think this worth mentioning in the list.—Chris! ct 23:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris! ct 23:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from KV5
- I would really like to see some more expansion in the lead. I know it's baseball, not basketball, but you might get some ideas from List of Philadelphia Phillies team records and List of Nashville Sounds team records. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've tried to add as much as I think is relevant. I've also finished adding the NBA records section. Hope it satisfies. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above is completed. Additional comments:
- En-dash in "Best undefeated start (15–0)
- In the key, pipelink overtime (sports) like this: Overtime
- Lowest FG% - 23 out of 78 is a lower percentage than 26 out of 88. Also, it's unclear what (23–78) means. I thought that it meant 23 baskets and 78 misses, which is how I originally tried to do the math. Clarify.
Hope this helps. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How to calculate field goal percentage is actually explained in Note A. But I've added an extra note to give an exaomple. And also fixed the other issues. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
- Make that lead image bigger, up to 300px is cool (I think) by the MOS.
- You don't mention franchise until the start of para 2 of the lead. For non-US readers this concept is a little unclear so perhaps mention it earlier (like when they moved cities perhaps?) and link suitably?
- Pehaps I've forgotten but typically numbers like 3200 are written with a comma separating the thousands, 3,200 say. Your numbers don't do this.
- Apostrophe question - lead has "Of the Rockets' current players...", Yao Ming's caption has "Yao Ming holds Rockets records..." aren't Rockets being used in the same way here? My grammar isn't top notch so perhaps that's nonsense.
- Looks right to me, in the first instance "Rockets" is being used as a possessive and in the second as an adjective. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tracy McGrady made 6 of the ..." six?
- Per MOS:NUM, comparative quantities (6 out of 19 seasons) should be spelled the same. It's something that I've cracked down on ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Rockets only scored 66..."... scored only, not only scored...
- Not sure why the list is categorised under "National Basketball Association templates"... possibly need a noinclude in the template? Not sure...
- Fixed last point—Chris! ct 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed them all, I think. I just piped franchise to professional sports organization in the first sentence, so hopefully that will cover that issue. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:38, 27 March 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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [11].
I nominate this list for Featured List status as I believe it fullfills all the FL requirements. Several problems have been addressed after review from several helpful Wikipedians MPJ-DK (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
- General comment
Fix the dabs (using the first tool in the toolbox at the right)
- FixedMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
The Mexican National Heavyweight Championship (called the Campeonato Nacional Completo in Spanish) is a Mexican Mexican professional wrestling championship created and sanctioned by Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission). -- (1)The English name of the title should not be in italics (2)Do not link anything in the name (the Mexico City Boxing and Wrestling Commission) its WP:OVERLINK and does not redirect to any relevant articles (3)Remove the second Mexican
- 1) done, 2) Removed the wrestling link - but a definition of what "Mexico City", "Boxing" and a what a sports related "Commission" is isn't relevant? 3) doneMPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No because its overlinking of common terms that a reader should be aware of already. The only link relevant would be an actual link to the commission itself--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll remove "Mexico City" & Boxing links. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From 1933 until the mid-1990s, Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) had control of the championship; however, the Asistencia Asesoría y Administración (AAA) has controlled the championship since 1996, after the commission granted them the right. -- (1)In what ways does CMLL have control over that title? (2)..granted them the right to...?
- 1) as stated the Commission endorses it, they say "yes this is a national mexican title" and they approve champions. Everything else CMLL (and later AAA) had control over - so they have control of who wins, who challenges, which storylines it's used it, how it's promoted (in a PR sense) and everything else. They do everything but the two aspects that are explained that the COmmission did. 2) the right to control the title.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)Since its unknown really what the control the promotion has since the control is controversial, I would add that as a footnote.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Controversial? I'll add a footnote. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*As it is a professional wrestling championship, it is not won or lost competitively but instead by the decision of the bookers of a wrestling promotion. -- Comma before but- Apparently not after all.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The title is awarded after the chosen champion "wins" a match to maintain the illusion that professional wrestling is a competitive sport. -- (1)I would pipelink sports entertainment to "illusion"
Being created in 1926 means that the Mexican National Heavyweight Championship is the oldest continuously promoted wrestling title in the world. -- Well you don't know that it is created in 1926, just its documented use, so it should be restated as such.
- Well considering you yourself objected to a phrase indicating that it may be older than from 1926 on the grounds that it was Original Research I am a bit surprised at this comment. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't need accusations sir. I'm stating that that in the previous sentence you say the first documented use was in 1926 (with the possibility of being older) and in this sentence you state that it was created in 1926, which contradicts the previous sentence that states its first documented use.
- Accusations? what the? WP:AGF and all, changed to "being created no later than". MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When Empressa Mexicana de Lucha Libre (EMLL, later renamed CMLL) was founded in 1933, it was given the promotional control of the title, with the Commission only being asked to approve the champions. -- Does the Mexican commission have an acronym? If it does, the Commission should be replaced with that
- It does not have an acronym as far as I've been able to find out.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"The current Champion, Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status, and as a result, the longest documented reign belongs to El Médico Asesino, who held the title for 2074 days. -- Remove the quotation mark in the beginningMr. Águila holds the distinction of being the champion for the shortest amount of time with 42 days. -- Comma before with
- Title history
I would make sure that the days held is correct.
- Do you just want me to confirm I checked or do you see a problem? I didn't once calculate any days, I used the "time in days" template do it with start & end dates where I've reviewed it a few times to ensure I put the correct start & end dates. As far as I can see this is fine.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, because sometimes reigns that last one day or vacated reigns are not counted properly sometimes with the template.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vacant titles don't have legth and the shortest reign is 42 days, I think I'm on the safe side here. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Championship reigns by combined length
The key should not have the Name in italics because that's not how it appears in the table itself
- I put that so the cell wouldn't be just narrow, but I changed it.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References
Wrestling-titles.com is not a reliable source--₮RUCӨ 21:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right it's not deemed a reliable source according to WP:RS, which is why I've restricted it to one simple thing - the minimum weightlimit for the term "Heavyweight" in regards to Mexican weightdivisions, not really controversial or problematic, it's certainly been used for less sources than a lot of existing FLs on wrestling. I guess I could look for another source for this detail.MPJ-DK (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to stop comparing to old FLs, they were passed when the sourcing and FL criteria was not as strict as it is today. Wrestling-Titles.com is not reliable for weight divisions either because that information is controversial since weight divisions are scarce in pro wrestling today, and that is not verified by other reliable sources (unless you can find one). --₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Failing to see the "controversy", but I'll remove the citation until I can find a reliable one. MPJ-DK (talk) 08:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the general ref or an official page from the promotions can verify that the title is for those weighting at least the certain weight limit can challenge for it, then that can be used instead of finding a source for the weight divisions in pro-wrestling.--₮RUCӨ 22:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very good point, I've not read the preface sections of the book in a real long time, maybe it has a comment in there - thank you for that idea. 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- So was this done?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked but didn't find it specified in the book, I haven't found any weightlimit mentioned on Heavyweight titles in wrestling as they're generally "no weight restrictions" unlike the lower weight divisions that are only open for a narrow weight range. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So how did you come up with the weight limit listed in the article?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know perfectly well how but the source was deemed "unreliable" even for something as uncontroversial that the Heavyweight division theoretically has a lower limit.MPJ-DK (talk) 06:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Break) Problem solved, the statement isn't there any more. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But wait, if there is a limit, then thats substantial to the article. Is there a Spanish ref that states this?--Best, ₮RUCӨ 14:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "But wait"?? That's no more "substantial" to this article than any other list of heavyweight wrestling titles on Wikipedia
- For point number 3, a comma isn't needed before but because the subject of the sentence does not change. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, its either or, I've seen variations of this in other FLC's that are in Brit English.--₮RUCӨ 01:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Charly Manson, is the longest reigning champion, although, there is some uncertainty over his championship status" - this is not elaborated on anywhere in the article. What is the nature of this "uncertainty"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh - it was in the article before I split it, it's explained at Mexican National Heavyweight Championship but of course it should be menetioned here in some way. I'll figure out a good way to work that into it.
- I think I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've addressed all the problems. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a different way to do notes so that it's clear what is a footnote and what is a reference, I think it works out better.MPJ-DK (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
- "The Championship is currently vacant, possibly inactive as it has been vacant since September 13, 2006" - so is it inactive, vacant, both or neither? This sentence is extremely confusing. Also, shouldn't a line indicating its current status be added to the bottom of the list? Currently if a reader skips or skim-reads the lead and jumps straight to the list, they will think the last guy on the list is the reigning champ.
- Well all we knew for sure when I wrote that was that it was vacant but there has been no clear cut announcement that it was inactive. I now have a source that says "it's inactive" and I changed the wording and everything to reflect this fact. Should be more clear now. And looking at it I had the source all along but forgot to fix the text! MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't view reference no 1 at work, as my firewall doesn't like it, but our own article on the AAA World Heavyweight title specifically states that Manson's National title was not on the line when he lost to Mesias in the semi-final of the tournament to crown the first AAA champion,w hich would suggest that he left the tourney with it intact. Can you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I can clarify, the other article is technically wrong. He didn't officially lose it to his opponent but it was unified in the tournament and thus inactive from the second Manson got knocked out of the tournament. the AAA Title replaced this title (and 3 others). When I get time I need to actually update the other article. The AAA source talks about the AAA HEavyweight title stating the titles it replaced. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't view reference no 1 at work, as my firewall doesn't like it, but our own article on the AAA World Heavyweight title specifically states that Manson's National title was not on the line when he lost to Mesias in the semi-final of the tournament to crown the first AAA champion,w hich would suggest that he left the tourney with it intact. Can you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well all we knew for sure when I wrote that was that it was vacant but there has been no clear cut announcement that it was inactive. I now have a source that says "it's inactive" and I changed the wording and everything to reflect this fact. Should be more clear now. And looking at it I had the source all along but forgot to fix the text! MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbered refs against the last champion on the list are the wrong way round, should come in numerical order
- You're right, I fixed it. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now that my points have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Sorry if I repeat anyhing that's been discussed already, if I do, feel free to slap me down. Anyhoo...
- The title is ambiguous. When I loaded the list up I expected to see a boxing list. I got a wrestling list. Because of this I would consider renaming it to include wrestling somewhere.
- The thing is, that's the name of the championship - nowhere in the title is the word "wrestling" mentioned so it can't really be included in the name. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not keen on the fact that Mexican links to Lucha Libra in the lead. This isn't terribly clear as I would expect it to have linked to Mexico instead...
- "...Title was in 1926. Because it was created no later than 1926,..." not keen again, a little repetitive, perhaps "in 1926 and as such is the oldest.."?
- "... the promotional full control of the title,.." reads odd to me, would "...the full promotional control..." be better perhaps?
- You have "the commission" and "the Commission" in the lead. Be consistent.
- If the championship is now inactive, ought the lead to say "was a ... championship" rather than "is a... championship"?
- 2074->2,074. Check the Days held column for more of this...
- I actually don't control that, there is a template that calculates the number of days and gives the number, not sure if I can get that format to come out using that template or not but I'll have a look. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mr. Águila has been champion for the shortest amount of time.." - "amount of" is redundant, and again, ought this be "Mr Aguila was champion for the shortest time,..."?
- Full stops or no full stops in the table. Be consistent either way.
- I would include a statement about the deactivation and vacation of the title in the lead as a final word.
- "Title vacated when Dantés retires" written in present tense seems a little odd - perhaps "retired" is better. Same for "dies...".
- For Firpo Segura, you have a note as to who he defeated. Surely this information is available for a number of the more recent titles?
- It's only mentioned when the person defeated for the title wasn't the previous champion, no note = beat the previous guy on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is fine until you reorder the list....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is true, but no other championship title list includes this and would be redundant in the format 99% of the readers se it - sorting is for when you want to look at different aspects like length or place or so on, not general comprehension. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is fine until you reorder the list....! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's only mentioned when the person defeated for the title wasn't the previous champion, no note = beat the previous guy on the list. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Championship vacated for unknown reasons" don't you mean "Title vacated..."?
- The term is used interchangeably "Title" or "Championship" isn't any difference. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised that so few of the more notable wrestlers have no articles. Just a comment really.
- it really is a shame, Lucha Libre is not a great focus area on the English wiki pages, hopefully I'll get to make a lot of the articles in the future. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, apologies for any repeats and more so for being late to the review. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've answered the question that are quickly answered, I'll go through your notes and fix anything I haven't commented on yet.
Okay I've done the edits, I think it turned out well. I even removed the only unsourced statement on the page. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:40, 26 March 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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [12].
After getting a peer review to address some of the proofreading concerns brought up before, I think this list is ready for FL. Reywas92Talk 21:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Much improved.
Sources
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Doncram About the counting of national monuments, I began to question about this in the last peer review, but i didn't get back to it promptly, sorry for not doing so, hence need to continue here. I see an issue in the fact that the article asserts that there are 100 National Monuments, but that is neither sourced nor made self-evident in the article. It is unclear, I think, whether 100 is a rounded off number, an approximate number, or what. It would be a feasible and good accomplishment of the wikipedia list-article to establish how many national monuments currently exist (and/or how many previously existed). The table looks fine at first glance, and it is explained. But there are problems (this discussion was garbled by later edits, i think). doncram (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a numbers column to the table, since it helps editing specific rows in the table. dm (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, i see. I would prefer the numbers were small (like 78 rather than 78), so that it would be more clear they are not official numbers. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numbering was in, but now is gone, so my preference about number size is moot. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, i see. I would prefer the numbers were small (like 78 rather than 78), so that it would be more clear they are not official numbers. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying this is the only way to document the 100 number, but in state lists of National Historic Landmarks and many other NRHP lists, the use of a numbering column makes it self-evidently observable in the list-article how many items are in the list. (Of these only List of NHLs in AL is a featured article.) I believe that small-sized row numbers can be used in this way like the numbering that appears for row numbers in Excel, without causing undue confusion that the numbers are official numbers or have any other meaning.
- Honestly, I really don't like those numbers. They mean absolutely nothing. It does no good to arbitrarily number the monuments because they're alphabetical. And when a new monument is created we'll just have to redo the whole thing. The NPS site numbers them, but that's by date created and includes past NMs. In my opinion we don't have to prove to the reader that there are 100 by counting them one by one. It's not rounded, there just happens to be exactly 100, and I don't think numbering each one alphabetically is the best way to prove that. This article does not need to conform to the NHL lists, a completely separate topic, and I disagree with their use there.
- I think that your stated concern about maintenance issues is completely bogusoid; wp:NRHP is not very much taxed with renumbering list-tables spanning about 50,000 U.S. NRHP sites that get about 25 updates every week. It is Friday night now, the update came out a few hours ago, all the NRHP lists have been updated already. There are new National Monuments every few years. You could deal with that. But, I can accept nonetheless you don't like the numbering; i think it is a matter of personal taste. For the NRHP list-articles, it is more important that every one of them make a self-evident total, so that nation-wide we can contribute a nation-wide total. In this article, the first table also provides an opportunity to support the exactness of the 100 total. So, okay by me. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly, I really don't like those numbers. They mean absolutely nothing. It does no good to arbitrarily number the monuments because they're alphabetical. And when a new monument is created we'll just have to redo the whole thing. The NPS site numbers them, but that's by date created and includes past NMs. In my opinion we don't have to prove to the reader that there are 100 by counting them one by one. It's not rounded, there just happens to be exactly 100, and I don't think numbering each one alphabetically is the best way to prove that. This article does not need to conform to the NHL lists, a completely separate topic, and I disagree with their use there.
In this article, the leading table "Breakdown by federal agency and department" provides another opportunity to establish the 100 it is not a standard type of table (I know of no examples like this, although if there are in some other FL articles i might not like those either). It includes triple entries of some of the national monuments. The table is actually confusing as to how many national monuments there are. The table's diagonal entries total to 105, if you add them up yourself. The total of all entries in the table is 115. There is no column or row of totals involving each agency and overall. I think a revised table is needed, which would provide in a row or in a column the total number of national monuments associated with each agency, and a deduction for duplications, and an overall total of 100.
Also about the leading table, the order of agencies within the table shows no obvious order. It is neither in alphabetical order nor in order of frequency. doncram (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues: Table of agencies dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Table of Agencies
|
Resolved issues: Name Sort Issue dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Name Sort Issue from dm (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A question raised at the Talk page of the article, at List of National Monuments of the United States#Ordering of peoples names, is about the ordering of entries involving persons' names. Should "Booker T. Washington" appear at B or at W in the order. The question was raised by dmadeo with whom i work on NHL and NRHP lists. Reywas92 prefers showing Booker at B, and gives two examples where it is given that way in lists elsewhere. I personally think it could go either way, leaning towards Reywas92 preference, and am happy to defer to Reywas92 judgment. I bring it up here because these FLC discussions seem to be used for setting precedent for judgements about NHL lists and other NRHP lists. There are currently over 1,000 NHL and other NRHP list-articles in development, all hopefully coming towards FLC, where the choice by wp:NRHP so far has been to put the place names in order at the last name of persons. I want to avoid future problems which this FLC plus Reywas92's comment in the discussion could pose. Reywas92 commented there that "That's not right for this list, and I would consider it wrong for the NHL list". I want to point out that there is justification for different practices in different types of lists. In lists of NRHPs, there are many cases where putting in lastname order groups together related places, e.g. in a list of NRHPs in Arkansas, it would put together
and that seems good and appropriate, rather than having them scattered due to random differences in how the names are entered into the NRHP's database system. In this list of national monuments there are proportionally fewer person names involved, and no situations where it would be better to put any pair of them together. Anyhow, I don't have a problem with how the list ordering is done here, but if someone wanted to make a general FLC rule that places named after a person needed to be at first name first, always, I would oppose that. If there must be a rule one way or the other, I would argue the opposite for its more general applicability (thousands of NRHP lists in pipeline, vs. just a few national monument list-articles).
|
Back to this national monuments list, I think it would add to the article to identify how many of the monuments are historic sites listed on the NRHP. Which ones those are might best be listed in a footnote. Some national monuments, such as the African Burial Ground one in NYC, are historic sites primarily, actually listed on the NRHP and possibly also further designated as NHLs before being further designated as National Monuments. Other national monuments are primarily natural areas. One source for this is the official PDF list of National Historic Landmarks (available here), which includes at the end mention of all the national monuments which are NRHP-listed. I could help with this, don't think including this or not should change the FL decision here. Overall, I do support this list-article for FL. doncram (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I am happy with you denoting NRHPs/NHLs in this list, but I'm not as interested in them as much as you. Again, that is a separate system of recognition for places that is not directly relevant to NMs so I don't think it is urgently needed, but you are welcome to note it.
- It's worth noting in the description, there are only a few of them. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, i am not sure how many there are or not. The analysis started at a subpage of the article Talk page may lead to a sentence being added to the article "___ of the 100 sites are listed on the NRHP, and ___ are further designated NHLs." This would be somewhat helpful to characterize how many National Monuments are declared by presidents for their historical importance, relative to the already stated number of ones listed for their environmental importance (alone or in addition to historic importance). This is taking some time to develop, is not a high priority. I support FL status for this list without that addition. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth noting in the description, there are only a few of them. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the African Burial Ground one, the description needs some rewording. It links to the National Historic Landmark program, which is probably good and appropriate, but it suggests that that the place is "now landmarked" as if the NHL designation came recently, after NM designation. In fact it was an NHL first. Perhaps the link to the National Historic Landmark program should come in, also, in some intro paragraph text about how many of these are NHLs. doncram (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, though I'm not what what is the best way to rewrite it. Thanks for all of your comments! Reywas92Talk 19:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take another crack at it. dm (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the agency table to version 3C. Thanks for helping with that! Reywas92Talk 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, good, i thinks it be better. As I said elsewhere I do recognize it not being easy to create clear tables like this, hence my taking on the task of trying to develop alternatives, rather than simply criticizing yours. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full Support for FL listing now, all my concerns addressed. doncram (talk) 01:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to bring this up, but it's not clear to me that Fort Moultrie is a national monument of its own. It appears to be part of Fort Sumter. [1] dm (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the exact details, but they are both National Monuments. Moultrie is considered a unit of Sumter because they are nearby and administered together, but they count as two. [13][14] Reywas92Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what those webpages are, or how official they are. I figured, cut to the chase and called the number on the official web page. She very patiently explained that Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Charleston harbor are three separate locations, all considered part of Fort Sumter National Monument. The NPS never does us any favors not having one official list like with the NHLs, with the different names and categories, etc. It's possible they were separate at one point and are not any longer. We'll probably have to dig up the declarations, but until we do, I dont believe I've seen a reliable source saying that Moultrie is a separate National Monument? dm (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW: I probably should have caught this back in September when I turned the list into the table. There were other entries which needed to be removed at the time. dm (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a big thing to do by actually calling them - Thanks! So shall I go ahead and remove it and note it in the Sumter description? I'll have to update all the numbers at the top, too, then. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's give it a day for other comments to show up, but yes, I believe we should remove its row and mention it in the Fort Sumter line. The articles should be modified to state this as well. dm (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fort Moultrie is removed and the numbers are updated. Reywas92Talk 21:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's give it a day for other comments to show up, but yes, I believe we should remove its row and mention it in the Fort Sumter line. The articles should be modified to state this as well. dm (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a big thing to do by actually calling them - Thanks! So shall I go ahead and remove it and note it in the Sumter description? I'll have to update all the numbers at the top, too, then. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW: I probably should have caught this back in September when I turned the list into the table. There were other entries which needed to be removed at the time. dm (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what those webpages are, or how official they are. I figured, cut to the chase and called the number on the official web page. She very patiently explained that Fort Moultrie, Fort Sumter and Charleston harbor are three separate locations, all considered part of Fort Sumter National Monument. The NPS never does us any favors not having one official list like with the NHLs, with the different names and categories, etc. It's possible they were separate at one point and are not any longer. We'll probably have to dig up the declarations, but until we do, I dont believe I've seen a reliable source saying that Moultrie is a separate National Monument? dm (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Newberry is a National Volcanic Monument. Is that the same thing as a National Monument? dm (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same thing, just a more specific name. Mount St. Helens is also a National Volcanic Monument, and a few are Marine National Monuments. Reywas92Talk 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a possibility we'll be able to add a photo of Hohokam Pima, dealing with license issues right now. dm (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And its added, BruceandLetty really came through. dm (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great Sand Dunes National Park was a National Monument according to its page, but is not on the link we offer in the intro which if I understand correctly are only the NPS ones which are no longer National Monuments. dm (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [[List_of_areas_in_the_United_States_National_Park_System#Decommissioned_National_Monuments|That list] has all the former NMs that are no longer under NPS control, but it's lacking in those that were given a different designation because they're somewhere else on that page; there are at least 50 former NMs according to this site, which lists all of them. I could work on adding more to that list later. Reywas92Talk 22:00, 21 March 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 Scorpion0422 23:09, 28 March 2009 [15].
- Nominator(s): Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 07:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Good work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 02:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs): Few edits made, including an image rename (manual reupload; I'm unsure if even administrators can move files). Please check if the new picture meets the Fair Use criteria; I'm not sure if I did it correctly. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, looks great. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 03:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I'm not doing a full review here, but shouldn't this be nominated for GA, since the third season article is.--Music26/11 19:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the season three page is more like a season article, rather than a season list, if you get what I mean. I am going to remove some information from that page and nominate it for FL later. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Done
Not done
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Marsinvestigations is a fan site. The first page says "marsinvestigations.net is an unofficial, nonprofit, unauthorized, unprofessional site done by a bunch of fans."
- That's true, and I have a hard time arguing my case in respect to these sites, but many users have told me that since the info is coming "straight from the horse's mouth", or whatever, it is slightly more accepted. It's not unusual for fansites to host interviews with their targeted series, and Daggs is saying the info himself, not some fan. Is the issue here that we fear the site may have made this stuff up? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the no fansite policy is more of a general thing, for every reliable fansite there are a dozen non-reliable ones (I agree with you though, I edit a lot of Simpsons pages and we can't use The Simpsons Archive, which really hurts sometimes). -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Well, I have not removed the information yet, but I guess I will have to when the time comes. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the no fansite policy is more of a general thing, for every reliable fansite there are a dozen non-reliable ones (I agree with you though, I edit a lot of Simpsons pages and we can't use The Simpsons Archive, which really hurts sometimes). -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, and I have a hard time arguing my case in respect to these sites, but many users have told me that since the info is coming "straight from the horse's mouth", or whatever, it is slightly more accepted. It's not unusual for fansites to host interviews with their targeted series, and Daggs is saying the info himself, not some fan. Is the issue here that we fear the site may have made this stuff up? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Yahoo useable? I've seen some FACs like this one where users said it wasn't allowed.
- Well, it's not the most reliable ref, but it is the most reliable ref I could find. It seems no other sources bothered to explain why she left. I could just remove the budget issues section, but I think an explanation of why she left is needed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try searching NewsBank (if you don't have access, I can do it for you)? -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be very appreciated. Thank you. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you try searching NewsBank (if you don't have access, I can do it for you)? -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not the most reliable ref, but it is the most reliable ref I could find. It seems no other sources bothered to explain why she left. I could just remove the budget issues section, but I think an explanation of why she left is needed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we really allowed to link to pirated DVD commentaries like this? After all, we usually aren't allowed to link to YouTube because of copyright concerns (I'm not saying the commentary itself can't be used, I just don't think you should link to it).
- I have no idea. The thing is, SlaveRats is Rob Thomas' official site, so if he put it up, I'm guessing it's fine? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking in the refs section. -- Scorpion0422 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the repeated linking of "ABC Medianet"? I'm slightly confused when it comes to these things because I see it all the time. Should refs be linked only in the first instance like prose, or is there a different style? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is what I mean. I don't know if there's a policy against it, but I think it's just a necessity thing. Does ABC need to be linked a dozen times in a row like that? -- Scorpion0422 15:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I get for rushing through an FLC review... Dabomb87 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least you were kind enough to actually do a review. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 00:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean the repeated linking of "ABC Medianet"? I'm slightly confused when it comes to these things because I see it all the time. Should refs be linked only in the first instance like prose, or is there a different style? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marsinvestigations is a fan site. The first page says "marsinvestigations.net is an unofficial, nonprofit, unauthorized, unprofessional site done by a bunch of fans."
- Comment I took a look in Newsbank and I couldn't find anything. The article itself says its a rumour, and I think it needs a stonger source than Yahoo. -- Scorpion0422 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well it has been removed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Marsinvestigations ref has also been removed. :( Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well it has been removed. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 04:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I always think that to prevent {{Globalize/North America}} you should make a mention, if possible, of other international channels/dates/reception . e.g. Living TV in the UK where it averaged 50k viewers, CTV Television Network in Canada, Network Ten in Australia etc.
- Okay; the info has been added from the main page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be worth adding a mention in the Critical reception section of the awards received as a result of season 1.
- It is worth it, but I have no idea which awards correlate to this season. Just because the award was awarded in the same year, does that mean it was for this very season? Because of my confusion, I think I'll just leave the award info on the main page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree some are difficult, e.g. the AFI award whose criteria is First-run programs airing for American audiences on network or cable television between January 1 and December 31[16] and would apply to S1 and S2. However some of the others are much more obvious. The 2004 Saturn is clearly for S1 as no other season had aired then. The 2005 TCA awards are for S1 as one of the noms is "Outstanding New Program of the Year". Similarly for Teen Choice. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I added them all. Hopefully they are correct. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree some are difficult, e.g. the AFI award whose criteria is First-run programs airing for American audiences on network or cable television between January 1 and December 31[16] and would apply to S1 and S2. However some of the others are much more obvious. The 2004 Saturn is clearly for S1 as no other season had aired then. The 2005 TCA awards are for S1 as one of the noms is "Outstanding New Program of the Year". Similarly for Teen Choice. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth it, but I have no idea which awards correlate to this season. Just because the award was awarded in the same year, does that mean it was for this very season? Because of my confusion, I think I'll just leave the award info on the main page. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency in the date format in the references, change the "accessdate" from ISO to the format used in the "date" parameter (i.e. Month DD, YYYY)
Apart from that it looks good. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 12:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 12:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff I forgot. I know the episodes themselves provide the director/writers/prod code info, and I will assume they are correct. However a general reference would be nice if it can be found. The episodes don't provide the airdate info and (usually) don't provide the name either. So I think you need an general ref for these (e.g. something like this) Also I have checked and S1 (unlike S3) is not available as video on demand from Amazon Unbox, iTunes and the like. However I think that http://www.thewb.com/shows/veronica-mars/ might show some episodes as video on demand. Might be worth mentioning if it is true. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 14:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I added the general refs. I can't access TheWB website because I don't live in the US, but I don't think it's that necessary anyways. Thanks for the idea though. :) Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks pretty good, but one last comment. Some of these season pages have DVD release information (and the ones that don't probably should). It might not hurt to add one for this page. If you decide to, here are some examples that you can base it on: The Simpsons (season 5), Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 2), Lost (season 3), The O.C. (season 1). -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Scorpion it does have some DVD release info. already. It is just located here in prose form. Best, Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did notice that. I meant a section with a table, etc. -- Scorpion0422 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the prose has all of that info anyways. Is there anything in particular from the table that you would like me to add to the prose? Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I did notice that. I meant a section with a table, etc. -- Scorpion0422 23:21, 26 March 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 Scorpion0422 01:20, 25 March 2009 [17].
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. This is also the inaugural list in my attempt at a featured topic, for which this will be the lead article. (For those who have expressed interest in the FT itself, see my sandbox for more details - scroll all of the way to the bottom.) Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. Great work.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 20:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good. But I am curious what featured topic you had in mind.—Chris! ct 23:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the DB87 capped comments. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading it, I am still not sure what the topic is. But, oh well. Good luck.—Chris! ct 01:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, see above link. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
- "Major League leader at his position (** indicates tie)" Since I'm not that much of a baseball fan, I don't get this, and neither will some other readers. Just clarify the statement.
- Clarified. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The title for the general reference should be "Awards and Honors - Silver Slugger winners", since I believe it is more clear as a title. "MLB Awards: History" won't really make sense.
- The "title" of a reference is supposed to be the title of the website. This is the HTML title, minus the boilerplate text from all MLB sites. I could add the subtitle if that would help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That will definitely help. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize this will be a huge pain, but would it be possible to make both tables of even width (including the columns)? -- Scorpion0422 15:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likely possible, but also likely to impede quite a few readers. This table is already cramped on a 1024x768 in Firefox and MSIE, and fixing column widths is likely to make it more so. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:50, 23 March 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 Scorpion0422 01:20, 25 March 2009 [22].
I am nominating this for featured list because after a peer review, I found the negative points to be improved, then resolved all to meet at least the FLC criteria. Cannibaloki 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Resolved review by Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 14:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed. Looks good. Drewcifer (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks really good. Only one question: what makes hardradio.com and bravewords.com reliable sources? Drewcifer (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They are reliable since they are interviews, the publishers may not be reliable, but the work (which is the actual band members) is reliable.--₮RUCӨ 14:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles, and HardRadio is just used for an interview that I found only in this site. Cannibaloki 15:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "Lee Rausch was replaced....and also added...." - Lee Rausch did not add Poland, so this sentence is gramatically incorrect
- Reworded.
- "October that same year" - doesn't read right to me (I'd say "October of the same year") but might be an ENGVAR thing - can you confirm if this wording is a valid American English usage....?
- Reworded.
- "who officially joined Megadeth in February 1990" - think you could dispense with the second "Megadeth", as it was only used in the previous clause and it's pretty obvious that's the band he joined
- Done.
- "Megadeth enlisted guitarist Al Pitrelli, as Friedman's replacement" - no need for comma after Pitrelli
- Done.
- The two sentences beginning "Following nearly a year of recovery" are unsourced
- Added.
- "brother to new guitarist" - again, is this a valid American English usage? In the UK we'd say "brother of"
- Reworded.
- Why are the titles of two of the refs in italics?
All looks good other than this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made one tiny punctuation tweak, but all seems alright now. I'd never come across the press release tl, but I guess it must be OK. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HardRadio should not be italicized.Can you link the publishers on their first occurence?Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think these members list pages would look more organized and easier to read if they used a table. Maybe something like:
Member | Years active | Instruments | # of releases | Release contributions |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dave Mustaine | 1983–2002 2004–present |
guitar, vocals | All Megadeth releases | |
Shawn Drover | 2004–present | drums, percussion | 2 | That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires (2007), United Abominations (2007) |
James LoMenzo | 2006–present | bass, backing vocals | 1 | United Abominations (2007) |
Chris Broderick | 2008–present | guitar, backing vocals | 0 | None |
The # of releases column is optional. -- Scorpion0422 21:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing... Cannibaloki 22:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It looks way different to other FL of band members, but I must accept is one of the most complete as well. The style used in this list is the most proper one, due to the high number of members. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Excellent. My only concern is the stacking of images in the lead and the second table should be sortable by last name. In regards to the first issue, you could do the current images table like this:
Name | Years active | Instruments | Release contributions | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dave Mustaine | 1983–2002, 2004 onward | guitar, vocals | All Megadeth releases | |
Shawn Drover | 2004 onward | drums, percussion | That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires (2007), United Abominations (2007) | |
James LoMenzo | 2006 onward | bass, backing vocals | United Abominations (2007) | |
Chris Broderick | 2008 onward | guitar, backing vocals | none |
If you decide to do it, you may want to make the images less tall. -- Scorpion0422 15:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the problem with the "stacking" of images? Cannibaloki 16:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It collides with the table, leaving unnecessary whitespace. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See again, please. Cannibaloki 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...the second table should be sortable by last name." Done. Cannibaloki 15:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See again, please. Cannibaloki 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It collides with the table, leaving unnecessary whitespace. -- Scorpion0422 16:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless someone has a very, very wide screen, there's no blank space now. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 18:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, that will work with the images. Has there been any negative response to the new table format? -- Scorpion0422 15:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What format? Overall or the last one with images? Cannibaloki 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just wondering if anyone has complained about the table format or not. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay with the tables. "See yourself!" ;) Cannibaloki 20:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just wondering if anyone has complained about the table format or not. -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What format? Overall or the last one with images? Cannibaloki 17:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try finding a Shawn Drover picture with the same format as theother three. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 23:44, 24 March 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 Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [23].
This is the main US Naval Academy alumni list and LAST almost last one for FLC submission I'm planning from USNA ;-) It had to have three sublists split from it due to size. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) and List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Chiefs of Naval Operations) are already Featured lists. List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Legislators) is currently listed at FLC. I've tried to give them a common look as it's one topic. In WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comment -- I'm concerned about the tag given This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy certain standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it. Is this incomplete?--₮RUCӨ 03:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I want to wait for other reviews before I support because I am so used to seeing these types of lists, so once more reviews are given, I'll come back.--₮RUCӨ 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JKBrooks85
|
---|
|
Support, all issues resolved. I am assuming good faith that the image uploaders correctly tagged the images. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" National Law Journal "-->The National Law Journal, and it should be in italics because it is a publication.
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Washington Post"-->The Washington Post, and same comment about the italics.
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.blackmilitaryworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=291 a reliable source?
- For one thing, everything in that article is accurate, but it already has one ref and I've added a third, so if you want to delete that one, we'd still have two. New one from Armed Forces Press Service. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it has a backup source then it's fine. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spell out abbreviations in the publishers such as NASA, USAA, and SM&A.
- Done, except SM&A doesn't break out to anything. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer if every instance were spelled out (readers might not catch the first instance), but no big deal. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 60, web titles in all caps should be converted to title case.
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 5 and 16 needformat=PDF
added to them.
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved image issues and extraneous discussion |
---|
*
(outdent) Can we do without the drama? If this is such a big deal, I can do most of this when I return from my vacation. If the images are the only things keeping the article from promotion, I'd rather just fix them myself. My gosh. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Images
- File:Horacio Rivero Jr.jpg claims {{PD-USGov-Military-Navy}}, but has no author or source information; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim.
- I have replaced said image with one which I took in the State Capital of Puerto Rico. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He means the one now in the article, clearly PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Samuelwilderking.jpg claims to be from Hawaii State Archives, but has no source link. No author or date information either to verify public domain status. Image is also tagged with a depreciated public domain template
- Deleted from article, Hawaii is a non free state/site, see [32], could be used under FUR but I'm not messing with that. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:David McCampbell.jpg has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
- Dupe of commons file, which has info, deleted en wiki version. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Carlisle Trost.jpgsource link [33] deadlinks; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
- There are two sources there, the defense imagery one still works. This is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Full PD information now posted on Commons:
- There are two sources there, the defense imagery one still works. This is PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:John A. Lejeune.jpg, File:Robert E. Cushman.jpg, File:John Mercer Brooke.jpg-- if date or author information could be found, that'd be nice
- Info found and added to all. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:JamesIredellWaddellCSA.jpgclaims to be from Naval Historical Center, but has no source link. No author or date information eiter to verify public domain status.
- NHC link and source information added to image description page for c.1864-1865 photo. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the NHC as shown on image description page: — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the NHC as shown on image description page: — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NHC link and source information added to image description page for c.1864-1865 photo. — ERcheck (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description |
Commander James Iredell Waddell (1824-1886), CSN; photographed in Confederate Navy uniform. |
---|---|
Source |
"Commander James Iredell Waddell, Confederate States Navy, (1824-1886)", Online Library of Selected Images, Naval Historical Center, Department of the Navy. |
Date |
circa 1864-1865. |
Author |
U.S. Naval Historical Center Photograph. |
Permission (Reusing this file) |
From the public domain U.S. Naval Historical Center.
|
- File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg is tagged with {{PD-old}}, but no author information can be found, so it may be possible that he died after 1939, and so the "life of the author plus 70 years" has not occurred yet
- Info you seek is below in a comment by ERcheck, online info shows it's PD and that the Bohemia mentioned was a book in 1904, not the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, retagged with {{PD-US}} — published in 1904. Comment about Sigsbee source below. — ERcheck (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info you seek is below in a comment by ERcheck, online info shows it's PD and that the Bohemia mentioned was a book in 1904, not the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:BrinkleyBass.jpg gives [34] as the source, and states "Charles Lewis gave permission for this image from http://ussbrinkleybass.com/hbbass.htm to be used in the Harry Brinkley Bass article on 28 Sep 2006." The image is tagged as CC-by-SA-2.5. Permission cannot be verified due to deadlink and no OTRS ticket.
- Website moved here but I can't find where they moved photo. I'll ask the webmaster about the photo's status. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:John Ripley.jpg has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
- Removed from the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zembiec-fallujah.jpg source links deadlink; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
- FOund new link, same site, but new address, added to image page, see [35] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Joeweberphysicist2.jpg is from http://www.usna.com, but I have found nothing to show that images there are automatically in the public domain. Image information states "This is a US Naval photo of Weber in Naval uniform, and thus is a US Governmental photo in the public domain." Yes, he's in uniform, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a Naval photo, and with no other image information, there is nothing to verify the copyright status/public domain claim
- It's his academy yearbook photo, see comment to Staubach for more on this. Updated image info, see [36] — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WWBehrensJr.jpg "Source: Family photo", tagged with {{PD-release}}. No other image information is given, so copyright status/public domain claim cannot be verified
- See this I doubt Arlington Cemetery would use a copyrighted image — Rlevse • Talk • 21:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Napoleon McCallum (cropped).jpg needs image information, otherwise, PD-status is fine
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:RogerStaubachUSNA.jpg is sourced from USNA, but there is nothing to verify public domain claim
- It's his academy yearbook photo. They are taken by Navy photogs for official gov pub, the yearbook. I can show you hundreds more like it. See this and this. The yearbook is called the "Lucky Bag" and they call these "Lucky Bag photos". HOpe this helps — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Admiral Harris Laning.png has no source, date or author infomation; cannot verify copyright status/public domain claim
- Found source book and added: " Scanned from a Naval Historical [Center] photo in:
Laning, Harris (1999).Admiral's Yarn, Newport, Rhode Island: U.S. Naval War College Press. This is U.S. Naval War College Historical Monograph Series, No. 14 This book is the "Memoirs of Admiral Harris Laning, who was Pres. of the Naval War College (NWC) circa 1930. Also note...includes Laning's opening address delivered before the NWC staff & classes of 1931; & Laning's thesis written while a student in 1921."...which is fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All other image files have been checked and verified as good.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't said they're not PD. I've said their status cannot be verified. Yes, common sense tells us they are PD, but that is original research. The deadlinked source links cannot help us verify that. Claims that they are PD because they are 70 years older than the death of the author cannot be verified because we don't know who the author is. I like Dabomb's suggestion of commenting them out and working on them one-by-one. There's no need to throw any toys out of the crib and delete stuff. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like lawyers with legal minds carried to the extreme. Take the most obivous ones, Civil War, let's say the author was 15 in 1865, now he'd be 159, but we can't use it. right. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note at WP:MILHIST, maybe some kind soul will come to help. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like lawyers with legal minds carried to the extreme. Take the most obivous ones, Civil War, let's say the author was 15 in 1865, now he'd be 159, but we can't use it. right. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't said they're not PD. I've said their status cannot be verified. Yes, common sense tells us they are PD, but that is original research. The deadlinked source links cannot help us verify that. Claims that they are PD because they are 70 years older than the death of the author cannot be verified because we don't know who the author is. I like Dabomb's suggestion of commenting them out and working on them one-by-one. There's no need to throw any toys out of the crib and delete stuff. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)Support: WP:AGF on images. Even if the links are "dead" now on some of the sources, they were provided at the time, and looking at their source (.mil), these are U.S. Military/DoD sources = public domain. Commons images, if not acceptable, should be tagged and discussed on Commons; else, they are in Commons so that they can be used anywhere, including Wikipedia Featured Lists. This is a well-written list and deserves featured status. — ERcheck (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are .mil links, but because they doesn't work we don't know if the images was ever sourced from that page. It's easy to say it is, but it has to be verified. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on File:CharlesSigsbee.jpg — the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs" [37] — this is 105 years ago - which is {{PD-US}} (seems to be published by the International League of Press Clubs in Philadelphia [38] [39]. — ERcheck (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That could easily be edited to say it was first published in 1931. It also says "Courtesy of Larry Franklin, 1983". Without a reliable, working source link to verify when it was published, we don't know if it is PD, and we don't know if Larry Franklin is the current copyright owner, if he's released it under a GFDL or Creative Commons licence, or what. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GEEZ. Talk about a complete lack of AGF, accusing things of being falsified without any justification. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Matthewedwards response above — 2 points:
- I did provide a link above (right after the words the Commons description clearly says it "Photograph published in Bohemia, 1904, by the International League of Press Clubs") — directly to the U.S. Department of the Navy's Naval Historical Center (NHC) page from which the information posted on Commons is taken. It is exactly as in the Commons source comment. Here it is again: www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/maine.htm. As for the "Courtesy of Larry Franklin 1983", I took that to mean that Larry Franklin provided 1904 book to the NHC from which the image was taken— which can still be found from a few antique book dealers. Nonetheless, it is clear that the U.S. Government is saying it was from a source published in 1904.
- Again, I ask you to Assume Good Faith. Your note above reads as if you are accusing the uploader of lying about his source.
- — ERcheck (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Matthewedwards response above — 2 points:
- GEEZ. Talk about a complete lack of AGF, accusing things of being falsified without any justification. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick note: I replaced File:Dennis Blair.jpg with File:Dennis C. Blair.JPEG, the latter of which is from a non-forum source. I don't know anything about insignia, but Blair appears to have fewer bands on his sleeves in the replacement. If this means it is depicting a different rank than before and/or a different rank than that which "needs" to be depicted, feel free to revert. Эlcobbola talk 18:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the JPG one he is a 4-star admiral, in the JPEG one he is a 1-star admiral (lower rank) — Rlevse • Talk • 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I apologize if someone has already asked this, but how did you choose who to include in this page? The astronauts list has five people, but List of United States Naval Academy alumni (Astronauts) has over 50. -- Scorpion0422 21:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the capped discussion from JKBrooks. Dabomb87 (talk)
- Yep, already answered; in fact it was a suggestion from Dabomb87 to do it that way since a single list is hopelessly undoable for this topic, which I plan to FT this set of lists and later the USMA alum I'm going to create. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the capped discussion from JKBrooks. Dabomb87 (talk)
- 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 Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [40].
- Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)
Hi there! It's been a while since I've submitted a FLC, but I figured it was time to do it again in order to stay in practice. This list includes every participant of the annual Yukon Quest 1,000-mile sled dog race, with champions and award winners color-coded for clarity. There's not as many musher-specific pictures as I'd like, but there are a handful. The list comes from the Yukon Quest's databases of finishers and participants, bolstered by several tables and lists in secondary publications. I feel the prose is clean and clear, and explains enough about the subject without being too overwhelming. As always, if you have a question outside of this review, don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks for your time and your review. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The list of Yukon Quest competitors" FLs don't start like this anymore. See recently promoted FLs for examples of more engaging starts. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank God. I always hated that insistence in starting it with the name of the article. I've reworked the lede, so feel free to take another look. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Watch the logical punctuation (I fixed it), ""toughest race in the world."-->"toughest race in the world". I will return for a full review later. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Review by Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support --- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the competitors is shown as "Nash, John" - is his name Nash John and the comma shouldn't be there, or (more likely) is it John Nash and his names are the wrong way round? Either way, it needs fixing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I had to convert the listing from last name first, and I guess I missed that one. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't see any other issues so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "The Yukon Quest International 1,000-mile Sled Dog Race has been called the "most difficult sled dog race in the world"[1] and the "toughest race in the world"." Starting out with two quotes like this is not very helpful (insufficient context) and sounds almost promotional with these fantastic quotes. I suggest splitting the sentences and adding info, like this: "The Yukon Quest International 1,000-mile Sled Dog Race is a is an annual sled dog race between Fairbanks, Alaska, and Whitehorse, Yukon. It has been called the "most difficult sled dog race in the world"[1] and the "toughest race in the world"."
- "to be the first to race via dog sled" The first to race, or the first to finish in the race?
- "Only 352 people have participated in the race since its inception in 1984, and even fewer have finished it." "Only" is a bit POV. You may need to reword so that you don't have a number starting a sentence.
- Link "scratch" in the lead, too.
- "which is voted by" "voted on".
- "during the
course of therace" Redundancy. - Numbers and corresponding units need non-breaking spaces, such as "9 days, 23 hours, and 20 minutes".
- "by taking 13 days, 23 hours, and 17 minutes to finish"-->by finishing in 13 days, 23 hours, and 17 minutes
- "Jeff King won the 1989 Yukon Quest and finished twice two times." Spot the redundancy, it's quite glaring.
- "but has only raced in the Quest once."
- Is there any way to center the info in the table? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the changes except for the Jeff King item -- he did finish second twice -- and the centering, which will take a little more time than I've got right now. I'd prefer not to do it, but if it really bothers you, it'll take me a while to put all the center style tags on the items. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your time on the centering. However, wouldn't you say "Jeff King won the 1989 Yukon Quest and finished second two times"? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's nice to see a sports FLC for something different. I'm wondering if you could through in a EL or reference that has an easy list of the winners? If you address this within the next 2 1/2 hours let me know and I'll promote it. -- Scorpion0422 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what "EL" is referring to, but both the final two references in the article contain similar lists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- External link. Could you link directly to one just for simplicity? -- Scorpion0422 21:55, 21 March 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 Scorpion0422 21:57, 21 March 2009 [41].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who became legislators. It is the third in a set of four lists of USNA alumni. All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Excellent work. Well-cited, the images appear to have correct copyright information, and the topic appears to be complete. My only concern is that the title of the article gave me the impression that state legislators also would be included. Since this only includes U.S. federal legislators, might I suggest a title change to List of United States Naval Academy alumni (U.S. Legislators)? JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed Roilo Golez who is listed. He's one of the foreign USNA alums and was a legislator in his native Philippines. I thought that something like (national level legislators) was awkard so just went with (Legislators). I've added "or its equivalent in their native country" to the first sentence of the second paragraph. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed Roilo Golez who is listed. He's one of the foreign USNA alums and was a legislator in his native Philippines. I thought that something like (national level legislators) was awkard so just went with (Legislators). I've added "or its equivalent in their native country" to the first sentence of the second paragraph. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues found in review have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 15:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I feel like I've reviewed this list before :); I am finding less to fix.
General comment Is there some kind of navbox that you can make for the four USNA lists? It would be better to have than to list the other USNA lists in the See also section. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The web title in ref 32 needs to be converted to title case, even if the original title was in all caps.Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm wondering if the references for specific statements should go in the notability section after the corresponding sentence. It might be more useful because if you want the source that confirms that Jeremiah Denton was a Rear Admiral, there are four to choose from. -- Scorpion0422 21:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the other USNA alum lists are done like that and wouldn't it be defeating the purpose of a refs column? I guess it's not a huge deal but for me I like the format and consistency of all refs in the refs column. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I always thought that the refs column was more for when the entire row was covered by once source and there was nowhere else to put it. I suppose you are right though. This is unrelated (so you can reply on my talk page if you prefer), but I was wondering what you thought about my recent comments. -- Scorpion0422 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the other USNA alum lists are done like that and wouldn't it be defeating the purpose of a refs column? I guess it's not a huge deal but for me I like the format and consistency of all refs in the refs column. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 21 March 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 Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [42].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]], « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie »
Though MFC is retired, I still want to give him credit for his work on this article. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 22:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 14 March 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 Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [43].
- Nominator(s): Rambo's Revenge (talk)
This is my 6th award in a SPOTY topic. WikiCup entry. Thanks in advance for any comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support looks good—Chris! ct 23:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Why the table of the section "By year", is so shrunken? (
width=50%
) Cannibaloki 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table didn't shrink with the width=50%, but actually got larger for better visualization. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]call me Keith 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically what SRE.K.A.L.24 says, the forced width is actually stretching the table. As for why 50%, if you try and stretch it across to the images there becomes an accessibility issue, as for other resolutions or smaller un-maximised windows, the table can get forced to start after the images which frankly looks awful. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 08:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks good, but there is some over-linking in the references section. Do BBC and BBC Sport really need to be linked dozens of times? You should just link the first use. (If you address this within the next three hours, let me know and I'll promote it today). -- Scorpion0422 20:58, 21 March 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 Scorpion0422 21:53, 21 March 2009 [46].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), Jmorrison230582 (talk)
Yesterday I noticed that the first FLC for this article had seemingly stagnated and that outstanding issues weren't being addressed. I therefore decided to get involved and fix up all the outstanding issues, which I believe I did, only to then find out that the FLC had in fact already dropped into the failed log before I'd started! After obtaining Matthew's blessing, however, I have re-nom'd the article myself, as I believe all the outstanding problems from the first FLC had been addressed. Hope that all makes sense :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All of the problems which i had found in the article that were added to the previous FLC have all been dealt with as Chris has mentioned above. Eddie6705 (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Previous issues from old FLC are resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards in my eyes.--₮RUCӨ 21:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- In the opening sentence, "the first official international match" needs a reference: the match in question has its own article, Scotland v England (1872), so you might well find one there :-)
- Denis Law being joint-top scorer made me ask "who with": could you work Dalglish's name into that sentence somehow?
- Key. Not sure the as-of date should be in with the definition of pink(?)/asterisk;
- and, the positions key looks really awkward, with the centred heading miles to the right of the position names.
- Should the Mac/Mc names sort together? like we use
{{DEFAULTSORT:Mackay, ...}}
to get all the Mackay/MacKay/McKays sorted together in category lists. - John Wark's caption needs a full stop.
Stuff I raised at the previous FLC has been satisfactorily resolved. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. All the Macs/Mcs now sort as "Mac", which means that Lou Macari gets sorted in with them as well, but I don't think there's any way round that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support All issues resolved, list satisfies criteria. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes these pictures below, relevant to this list? Someone has analyzed the quality of these images itself? Cannibaloki 01:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Andy Gray 2004-10-23.jpg
- File:Coisty.jpg
- File:John Wark.jpg
- erm, they're all players on the list, not sure what the issue is. Is it simply that the images depict the players in an "off-the-pitch" situation? If that's a major issue I can remove them, I'm not especially fussed either way. I note, though, that some existing sports FLs use images of players not actually on the pitch - List of York City F.C. statistics and records has an image of one of the players in his late 70s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is over-linking in the references section. Does Scottish Football Association really need to be linked almost 200 times? (If you address this within the next three hours, let me know and I'll promote it). -- Scorpion0422 20:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone who had AWB could do it, it would make life much easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just done it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone who had AWB could do it, it would make life much easier. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [47].
I am nominating this for featured list because it was peer reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues have been resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Commments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the page the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars? I notice it is semi-protected from editing. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There were some IPs who feel that the current formatting of the tables look awful. What they did was restore the list form and remove the lead. They were invited to discuss the matter, but they did not. They persisted so Eric protected them. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I had to revert another IP yesterday who was quietly tampering with the navbox at the bottom. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:50, 11 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [48].
- Nominator(s): Noble Story (talk • contributions)
This is modeled after similar lists for the Lakers, Bulls, and so on. I believe it passes the criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lookng at the lists for the Bulls and Lakers, the lead for this article is quite short. Expand it to include more on the team's history. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I review, I would also like to see the lead expanded like the sister FLs.--₮RUCӨ 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded it as best I could. But keep in mind the Bulls and Lakers have been around a lot longer than Houston. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 04:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comment, Gman124 (talk) |
---|
:Comments
|
- Support --Gman124 talk 05:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
I will return to review further once these concerns are addressed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Noble Story (talk • contributions) 15:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support from KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 21:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 03:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Hope you'll nominate more featured lists. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:04, 11 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [49].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it now meets the criteria. Regards, Efe (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Looks good. Well done! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Knowles' "Irreplaceable" is the longest-running single of 2006...."Irreplaceable" became...." - why the jump in tense? "Bad Day" is also referred to in the present tense - is it really appropriate to state that something "is" the most successful thing of the year when the year was three years ago? Maybe it's variant American usage, but to my British eyes it reads very oddly. It would be like saying "Otho is the shortest-reigning Roman emperor of AD 69"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Its really odd English in music articles. I am using "is" because the single remains the longest-running single of 2006. It does not change. That's how I understand grammar, unless I missed some. --Efe (talk) 10:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're saying, but it still reads strangely to me. I've noticed similar usage in other US articles, though, so I guess it must be an ENGVAR issue and therefore acceptable. So I guess I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, really strange. This style has attracted attention from those who have better grasp in English. Anyway, thanks for the support. --Efe (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [50].
Well, here we go again with this list. Third time lucky? I can only hope as this has easily been the most frustrating article I have worked on! The last FLC fell down mainly on sorting issues, and after a great deal of trial and error - mainly error - I have resolved the problems. There is, however, one exception. The Matt Keetley entry breaks the entire sorting function if I do anything to it. Even removing his entry breaks it. Don't ask me why, but I've spent hours trying to solve it, and have ultimately decided it is a flaw in the sorting functionality itself. Otherwise, this list is complete, statistics are accurate to the end of last season, and is stated as such, plenty of images, and I believe should meet WP:WIAFL. Looking forward to all comments. Resolute 16:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- I'm not sure what was the problem (other than sorting) in the table, but IMO it looks fine, but I want other reviewers inputs before I can make my decision. But overall, you've done a great job fixing it up. You may notify me when another reviewer has reviewed the list.--₮RUCӨ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- --₮RUCӨ 00:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
- Could the first table in the key be arranged differently so there isn't a blank section in the bottom right?
- Humour me on this one, as I know nothing about ice hockey....what does W/L/T/OTL/GAA signify (not as in what does it stand for, but what does it actually mean?) and why do only some players have stats in those columns?
- Shouldn't the columns with numbers in be centred?
All looks good otherwise -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter stats are goaltender stats, so would apply only to players at that position. Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses are the results of the game they played in, while goals against average is how many goals they gave up per 60 minutes of play. I'll add a clarification statement for that. Reworking the key as well. As far as centring the numbers goes, I'm not certain the overhead is worth it. I'd have to centre align the entire table, then left align the country and name cells individually... some 750 additional entries. I'll do it if it is deemed necessary, however. Resolute 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've re-aligned the table for you, but you might want to check I haven't accidentally messed anything up :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, looks good. Thanks for doing that. Resolute 05:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. The em dash issue that is being discussed on the FLC talk page is not a dealbreaker, but I'd like to see it fixed. I wouldn't impede promotion over it though; we can resolve it afterward. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about sorting moved to talk page Resolute 03:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is there a reason there's no mdash in the blank spaces? Maxim(talk) 21:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the discussion on the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur with DB87 above on both points of the sorting issue. I will not withhold my weak support as well for this list; the sorting issue can be resolved outside of this review period, but the content is featured material. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose This is really nothing, but involves the Gary Roberts caption. As of last week, he's no longer active. Other than that minor detail, which obviously wasn't an issue when the list was nominated, and you've got my support. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you want to get technical, he hasn't formally announced his retirement yet, so the caption was still accurate on one level. ;) I've changed it regardless. It was fitting that his last NHL game was in Calgary though. Resolute 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Considering he stated he won't play after this year or in the AHL, and the Lightning aren't going to call him up again, what he says doesn't really matter anymore. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued)
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Though I still would like to have trades note about the draft picks that were first on another team, but since WP:NHL doesn't care, ehh... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the fact that the images pushes the list down at 1024x768 resolution. Some of the players depicted never even played for the Flames, and many of them never made any big impact, do you think you could limit the number of images and perhaps put them in a gallery? —Krm500 (Communicate!) 15:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table appears fine for me at 1024x768 on my laptop screen. However, I will try to shrink them a little further. Not every player who is drafted by a team plays for them, so I personally believe their inclusion is appropriate. Resolute 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried upright all the pictures with 1024x768 resolution, and it works just like 125px (in fact it probably is, but not sure). So why not upright it? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did just change it to 125px, so yes, converting to upright would probably work at this point. Resolute 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried upright all the pictures with 1024x768 resolution, and it works just like 125px (in fact it probably is, but not sure). So why not upright it? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table appears fine for me at 1024x768 on my laptop screen. However, I will try to shrink them a little further. Not every player who is drafted by a team plays for them, so I personally believe their inclusion is appropriate. Resolute 16:08, 13 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [51].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the FL criteria. It is my first FLC, so I'm a bit on shaky ground. The list is very much based on the List of Lost awards and nominations FL, which is were a lot of the layout ideas come from.
Thanks very much. --Music26/11 13:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Lots of glitches; this article would have benefitted from a proofread by an independent editor. I feel like opposing on principle.
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only publications should be linked in italics; websites (such as BBC News) and associations (such as Academy of Television Arts & Sciences) should not be.Dabomb87 (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Done.--Music26/11 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am extremely stupid, I meant that "italics", not linked'. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
- No problem, I've relinked the unlinked links (what a sentence), and the publishers are not in italics anymore.--Music26/11 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am extremely stupid, I meant that "italics", not linked'. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
- Done.--Music26/11 14:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I really think this page needs moving to List of awards and nominations received by Dexter. I've heard of the Grammy Awards, the BAFTA Awards, the Saturn Awards, the Brit Awards, but never the Dexter Awards. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I had never thought about it, but now you say it, it does make the wrong impression. The page has been moved.--Music26/11 19:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments The opening paragraph differentiates between Primetime and Creative Emmys, but the Did You Know specifically says "Dexter has won two Primetime Emmy Awards." Since there are only two listings under Primetime and both are nominations, I thought the List was out of date at first. Maybe that's a Did You Know problem rather than the list article itself.
- Yep, that's my fault entirily. You see, the creative arts emmys are awarded to excellence primetime television, but differ in categories from the primetime emmys. That's why there are seperate tables. The DYK hook is not wrong, but it's not complete, and I'm terribly sorry for that.--Music26/11 18:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, James Remar's page doesn't mention his SAG Award nomination at all -- was he only nominated as part of the Ensemble? That seems strange to highlight in the article. The Cut of Your Jib (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's not really to highlight the fact that he was co-nominated, it's more to image the article. I could have placed an image of Michael C. Hall there, but since his name was already in the infobox I wanted some variety. As I stated in the lead, the article is based on the Lost award list, which passed with similiar images.--Music26/11 18:41, 10 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [52].
- Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk
Restarted, 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
---|---|---|
In August 2007, "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" (as it was then called) was given its FL star (see how it looked then). The list kept growing as more names were added, and some other FLs were spun out of it to keep it at a manageable size, making the initial list eventually one that listed alumni only, not academics. However, the main list has kept growing as I keep going through my "to do" list, and it was well inside the 30 longest pages on Wikipedia. To try and keep the main list (still over 200,000 bytes) at a readable size, I've taken out the lawyers, politicians and civil servants to make this list, which I present for your approval. In terms of comprehensiveness, I've exhausted the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Dictionary of Welsh Biography, as well as histories of the college and other sources, and so I'm confident that this is comprehensive. BencherliteTalk 16:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. I don't want to make a big deal about minor issues. Before I support, can I have clarification on the image statuses? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why are there so many missing years and degrees? Surely this information exists? I would tend to oppose due to lack of comprehensivness.Yobmod (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support My issues have been resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't see any faults—Chris! ct 01:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geez Dabomb, you got all our comments =P I also support, meets WP:WIAFL.--₮RUCӨ 02:43, 11 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [53].
- Nominator(s): - Caribbean~H.Q.
I am nominating this for featured list based on the progress presented during the last months. Since its creation, the list has been expanded, sourced and even verified for accuracy by a boxing writer (Antonio Martin). After undergoing peer review, I applied a few tweaks, but most of the review's concern were of technical nature and they have been fixed or clarified by now. This is the next logical step, I will work with this nomination on behalf of WP:PUR and WP:BOXING. Please note that my work rate will be significantly higher on weekends due to college, so if it goes unattended for a couple of days, rest assured that I will pick it up then. Thanks for your time. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment Looks pretty good to me, just some minor issues
—Chris! ct 01:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support —Chris! ct 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards]].--₮RUCӨ 03:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New comments are welcome. Thanks to Chris and Truco for your reviews as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Weak oppose from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) There are many prose glitches; nearly every sentence needs some sort of fixing (I note that the peer reviewer seemed to highlight prose as a major area of improvement). Please find someone to fix it up, it isn't much more than a ten-minute job. Examples:
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:50, 14 March 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 Scorpion0422 22:10, 14 March 2009 [54].
- Nominator(s): NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c )
This list is a former featured list that I split into three separate lists. One is now an FL, another is at FLC (which needs comments, by the way), and the final is in progress. Additionally, it has gone through a peer review. Thanks for your consideration. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 01:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] Sources
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] More
Stopped looking, I'm noticing a lot of prose that still needs tweaking. Suggest getting a copyeditor. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Okay, I have capped my oppose, but given the amount of changes I want give it another once-over before supporting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right one of my main concerns is that the three Ah! My Goddess were "produced by Tokyo Broadcasting System". Neither of ref 3 or ref 5 comfirm this. I may be wrong, but I wouldn't expect a TV network to be producing a show, just broadcasting it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's common enough for Japanese anime. I've added references which should help. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Honestly I still don't think this "exemplifies our very best work". However, it now seems to meet the criteria. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you tell me why this isn't the best work so I can fix it? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 18:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I can't see much wrong with list. Seeing that the Amazon site is only being used to reference its release date, it isn't really a problem. Top work. Sunderland06 (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is the ending theme for the OVA series "コングラチュレイションズ" or "Omedetou"? If the latter, what is the actual Japanese script? —tan³ tx 00:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry, fixed that. Copypasted the wrong thing (slash I don't speak Japanese). Thanks for the catch. NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 00:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my concerns were addressed during the peer review. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support: The list technically meets the criteria. However, there is something about it that just doesn't feel right. In most cases before supporting, I take a last look at the list and find myself thinking: "Yes, that's a featured list! It just hasn't received its star yet." That's not the case here. It's missing that special something more. But since I can't come up with "a specific rationale that can be addressed", I have to support. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Instead of posting all my comments here, I will just copy-edit the seven summaries myself. Watch for the hidden comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 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 Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [55].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk)
The format and sources for this one were cribbed from the recently promoted Dido discography, so hopefully it's OK. Let me know what still needs tweaking. And apologies if you suffer any eye ailments after looking at her outfit in the photo :-) ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great. All of my concerns have been addressed. Drewcifer (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments Good start, and most of my comments from the recent peer review have been addressed. But here's a few more nonetheless. Mainly, there's a few inconsistencies between this and the Dido discography you cited as your inspiration. I think Dido's discog is a good target, so I'll point out some ways to mimic it better:
|
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
OK, pretty much everything raised above has been sorted, but for the life of me I can't figure out (and I've been trying for the best part of an hour) why, even when I specify the width of the second column in the Mixtapes and EPs tables, it refuses to "force" to that size. What am I doing wrong (bound to be something really obvious that I've missed.....)???!?!?!?! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
distributed at live performances. -- This is not a complete sentence and thus does not need a full stop.
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 21:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Websites (such as Yahoo Music, Allmusic and BBC News) should not be italicized.http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/error/?c=y&referURL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M.I.A._discography&errorURL=http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/print_friendly.php?id=8794 (ref 28) deadlinks.Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed now, I think..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 6 March 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 Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [56].
Another in the long line of featured governor lists, the last couple being List of Governors of Indiana and List of Governors of Arizona. New features in this version of the format: Split terms (i.e. someone served a partial term, then served a partial term) are denoted with s, as in Indiana, and moving the images down to coincide with the table rather than the text. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent list to the same high quality as your others! My only recommendation would be to use a better word than "stint" in the last paragraph. Though I'm disappointed that Hiram Bingham broke Indiana governor Lane's record :(. Reywas92Talk 00:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, 'stint' sounds a little informal, but it was preferred to "distinct terms", as that could be ambiguous. As for the record, I believe the permanent record is held by James Peabody of Colorado, who was declared governor on the condition that he immediately resign so that his lieutenant could take the office. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "timespans"? Stint is really too informal. Reywas92Talk 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems a bit long; how about "spans"? Or is that too contracted? --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "timespans"? Stint is really too informal. Reywas92Talk 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, 'stint' sounds a little informal, but it was preferred to "distinct terms", as that could be ambiguous. As for the record, I believe the permanent record is held by James Peabody of Colorado, who was declared governor on the condition that he immediately resign so that his lieutenant could take the office. --Golbez (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 22:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:51, 3 March 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 Gimmetrow 03:42, 10 March 2009 [57].
Another NBA list written by me. Comments welcomed.—Chris! ct 23:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RU₢0 05:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support excellent list to the same quality as your others! Reywas92Talk 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. Cheers. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved layout issue |
---|
Comment On my screen resolution (1024 x 768), the images in the "Scoring leaders" section push the table down; in other words, they do not go alongside the table, they are above it, right-aligned, and there's a whole lot of white space on the left. Can this be fixed? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 07:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Added a sentence. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 9 March 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 Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [58].
I believe the last of any signifigant issues have now been resolved. じんない 20:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NocturneNoir
|
---|
Comments from NocturneNoir (talk · contribs)
I trust Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) did a good job copyediting, so I won't even look at the episode list for errors I won't find. Good job on the list overall. And why yes, I stole this comment layout from Matthewedwards (talk · contribs). I quite like it. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 01:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Wow, I really dislike the formatting of some of the citation templates... Anyway, I did a minor c/e and tweaking, so I will support. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ( t • c ) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: instead of using multiple sources for the Japanese epsiode titles, I believe it would be better to use a single source (perhaps http://www.b-ch.com/cgi-bin/contents/ttl/stry_list.cgi?ttl_c=601) as a general reference, as many other animanga FLs do. —tan³ tx 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment: per WP:MOS-JA#Titles of books and other media, "S・U・K・I" is styled inappropriately, and should probably be "Suki". —tan³ tx 10:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Did this myself. —tan³ tx 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done...took me a while to figure out what was the actual "title" and was was the "work" it was published under.じんない 10:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No other problems I can see. Support. —tan³ tx 03:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Sourcing
It was mainly by concerns with reliable sourcing that held this back on the two previous occasions, and my previous concerns have now been satisfied.
Other Comments
|
- Support. I fixed any remaining issues I found myself. I wish to congratulate Jinnai for persisting with this, through 3 FLCs and my many opposes/comments. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns were resolved in previous FLCs.
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:14, 10 March 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 Matthewedwards 02:04, 10 March 2009 [59].
So, yet another sports list. Having redesigned the table and added a history, I believe this article on the Western Hockey League's championship trophy now meets WP:WIAFL. Well sourced, appropriate lead image, straightforward table. I look forward to all feedback. Resolute 17:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Rambo's Revenge (talk · contribs) |
---|
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, I now have no major issues with this. The comments below are all minor/picky things.
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, my issues have been resolved. This looks good. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The prose is very well written (frankly, I was a bit surprised that I couldn't even add a comma or anything like that anywhere), the refs and list look excellent as well. Maxim(talk) 13:01, 8 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [61].
- Nominator(s): Underneath-it-All (talk)
I think this discography about the American singer is comprehensive and well referenced. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to support, very nice work. Only two minor comments: year columns should be centered (they look off to me), and you may want to put a # before the catalog numbers. Great work though! Drewcifer (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, nice. Without much enthusiasm, please. Cannibaloki 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- No need to link actress, it is a common term and most people know what it is.
- "2.9 million" Needs a non-breaking space.
- "top forty singles"-->top-forty singles I think "spawned" would be a better word here. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:38, 3 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [62].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk)
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all requirements. Despite receiving support from two reviewers, my previous attempt at obtaining FL status was unsuccessful. However, I have made all corrections requested here, so I hope the list satisfies all reviewers this time. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Previous comments resolved in the first FLC, and I still feel it meets the WP:WIAFL criteria despite changes. Good work.--TRUCO 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from JD554
|
---|
That's all for now, --JD554 (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Just one more thing I've spotted: The gold certification for Release the Stars isn't confirmed at the BPI's website[63] (use 'wainwright' as the search term) but it looks like Want Two was awarded silver. It may be possible that the BPI haven't kept their database up to date (but doubtful): Do you have another source for the gold certification that isn't a quote from Wainwright? --JD554 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have added the silver certification to Want Two on the table. This, this, and this all mention Release the Stars' gold certification in the UK. Does the reference need to be replaced? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on the proviso that the two independent sources are used over the current one for the gold certification. --JD554 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reporter, who says: "Congratulations on the success of Release The Stars, which has been at the top of the charts both here in the States and in the U.K., where it went Gold." --Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure about the last source as it's blocked from where I am at the moment, I could check it later, but from the URL it looks like an interview - does the reporter say it's gold or does Wainwright? This is also the problem with the second source as it's simply Wainwright saying it's received gold. The first one may be enough, but it's a bit weak compared to the BPI's site which I would have thought to be the most reliable. --JD554 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was pretty tough on this list, so I'm very happy to finally support. It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments Since you've already gone through my un-ending list of comments already, I'm pretty pleased with the way this list has turned out. There's a few more things that I'm noticing now, but nothing major:
I think that's it for now. Drewcifer (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support My comments were resolved at the previous FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, "It clearly meets all of the standards expected of an FL discography." Cannibaloki 02:42, 4 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [64].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]
Though I know that I'm going to get some comments, please be civil while you comment. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -
I have no clue what's implied with "Term", "Canuck season" or "NHL season".Grsz11 02:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentence starting "Though goaltenders are not permitted..." is a run on that repeats itself.
- The last sentence (Luongo is not permitted...) is again redundant. Grsz11 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heheh, I said please be civil. Anyways, I really don't know what to do for the last two comments. As for the first one, done, though it needs a copy-edit. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how I was uncivil, I was just really confused. Grsz11 02:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heheh, I said please be civil. Anyways, I really don't know what to do for the last two comments. As for the first one, done, though it needs a copy-edit. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
::::As far as the edit goes, I really don't think NHL season or Canuck seasons add anything. This list is about when they were captains, not when their career was, or how long they were in Vancouver. Grsz11 02:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It adds additional information to the article. Almost all featured lists have some columns that you may think are "redundant". -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 05:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 02:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The word "Canucks" is used 12 times in the lead, and many such uses are redundant. In a lot of cases, the usage of the word can be reduced, given it is obvious what team we are talking about. i.e.: "The longest-tenured
Canuckscaptain was Stan Smyl, who was appointed for eight seasons. Smyl is also the only captain to have spent his entire NHL playing career with the Canucks.[10] Trevor Linden, who captained (was captain)the Canucksfrom 1990 to 1997, played 16 seasons with the Canucks, a franchise high.[11] Swedish Markus Naslund, who captained the Canucks for seven seasons[a], is the only non-Canadian to serve in the role.to have captained the Canucks" Resolute 21:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Very well written list. Resolute 22:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 2 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [65].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
--TRUCO 01:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of my comments on the Astronaut list also apply to this one. Please review those. Reywas92Talk 16:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New York Times-->The New York TimesTIME-->TIMEDabomb87 (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:01, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [66].
This is one I've had ready for a while now, but I decided to hold off on nominating it. It's a wikicup entry, fully sourced and all concerns will be addressed by moi. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 18:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 01:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- There is a main article template at the top of the article pointing to Speed skating at the Winter Olympics, but it is also linked to in the first line under "is contested". Since Andrwsc considers these to be companion articles I don't mind if there's the template, but only one should be linked; pick one or the other. This should be consistant with all medalist articles, including List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Olympic medalists in freestyle skiing.
- Support Everything else is excellent. Reywas92Talk 16:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main templates were stuck in a few days ago by Maxim and I haven't decided if I like that or not. I guess the main template is a much more obvious link to the other article, so perhaps it is best. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one are you going to remove? It should not be linked twice. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Left in the seealso, removed the lead link. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one are you going to remove? It should not be linked twice. Reywas92Talk 00:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The main templates were stuck in a few days ago by Maxim and I haven't decided if I like that or not. I guess the main template is a much more obvious link to the other article, so perhaps it is best. -- Scorpion0422 17:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the medal sweep section you should say something about Eric Heiden's sweep of all the male medals.
- Should this be separate from short track speed skating? Short track should be mentioned somewhere in the article I think.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments - Looks like a great list overall. Just some picky things before I support:
|
Support - List looks good to go after the changes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [67].
- Nominator(s): KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on!
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets all of the FL criteria. It is fully referenced and contains appropriate images and content. Disclaimer: The list contains only 9 items, but contains notes about each unique no-hitter. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comment -- Before I review, I want other reviewer's input on this list on the 10-item limit rule. Notes are added, but this is a list that can be built upon (since its a list in the present and not a list in the past) and the notes don't really add to the entries to exemplify it from the rule; this from my standpoint. But if other disagree, I would be happy to review.--TRUCO 23:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a very hard one to decide whether or not it is an exception. In my opinion, a no-hitter in a season only occurs 1-4 (IMO approx.) times a season. that's around 1-4 times per 30 seasons for a team. According to calculations, the Phillies should get one in 2009 or the 2010s. In my conclusion, I think the user should wait until 2013, OR if more people support, then I will support the community's decision. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to oppose I oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list per the 10-item limit rule. I see no reason whatsoever why this list should be exempt from the rule. That said, I can be persuaded if the nominator can justify his/her reasoning.—Chris! ct 02:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My reasoning behind this is simple: a list of this length is perfectly able to satisfy all of the written FLC requirements. The 10-item rule is an unwritten guideline, however strictly it made be adhered to or not. Admittedly, this is not the format that I originally wanted to use for this list; the format I desired would have made this list itself much longer and more likely to ignore this guideline. However, the list features professional standards of writing (Cr.1), has an engaging lead and a title which clearly defines the scope of the list and explanatory material for those outside the baseball community (Cr.2), comprehensively covers said scope (Cr.3), is easy to navigate and sortable (Cr.4), complies with the MOS (hopefully so far, Cr.5), makes use of appropriate color and images (Cr.6), and is as stable as any other list in the present (Cr.7). I don't know how much more clear I can be. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So what you're saying is that any list with 9 entries are allowed for FLC? I'm going to notify WT:FLC about this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not what I said by any means. I simply think that a 10-item minimum is arbitrary, especially if the content meets the requirements laid out in WP:FL?. As I said, I doubt that we would be having this discussion if I were able to put this list in my intended format. If consensus on this issue goes toward opposing this list, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination at this time until I can locate the proper offline sources to make this list into my preferred format. However, I see no valid reason why it could not at least go through a nomination process. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think User:Dabomb87's comment on WT:FLC really convince me that this list should be exempt from the rule. I no longer oppose the inclusion of this list as a featured list.—Chris! ct 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Chris! ct 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang
|
---|
Comment
Everything else looks good—Chris! ct 19:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c] (continued)
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 07:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Well done on the list. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
- "Also known in their early years as the "Philadelphia Quakers",[1] pitchers for the Phillies" The way this is phrased, it sounds like only the pitchers were known as the Quakers.
- I can't think how to rephrase it, but I want to mention the Quakers since Ferguson's no-hitter was thrown during that era. Suggestions are welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "encompassing
a total of58 years"
- Done. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out… [the umpire's judgment on such matters] is final." WP:PUNC logical punctuation, the period should be outside the quotes.
- "is defined as that area over homeplate (sic) the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the kneecap." Same comment.
- (two above) The periods are both part of the quotes; they are included from the source.
- "a special type of no-hitter" Would "a special subcategory" work better?
- Much, thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "and stands as a defining moment in National League history" Not really necessary, let the facts stand for themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed, though it makes the paragraph look stubby. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [68].
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)
I am nominating this for featured list because I have finally taken the time to split this off properly. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5 |
---|
O.K.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider a peer review next time to catch the copyediting issues. Hope this helps. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support - all other concerns resolved to my satisfaction. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards. --TRUCO 22:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The year and date columns of the table need to be combined. You may want to try {{dts}}.
- I am not sure about this template, but I combined the columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For 2008-10-12 just make it {{dts|2008|10|12}}, which reads as October 12, 2008 and is sortable.
- It is sortable on my browser (Firefox) now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For 2008-10-12 just make it {{dts|2008|10|12}}, which reads as October 12, 2008 and is sortable.
- I am not sure about this template, but I combined the columns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retry the hyphens for 1987 with a footnote and a dash.
- Can you be more clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Change "-ran as half marathon-" to a dash centered in the cell and move the footnote from the date to next to the dash.
- I can not figure out how to format footnote next to dash.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Change "-ran as half marathon-" to a dash centered in the cell and move the footnote from the date to next to the dash.
- Very good to me overall. Reywas92Talk 03:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great job! Reywas92Talk 02:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more clear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 21:50, 7 March 2009 [69].
- Nominator(s): Nehrams2020 (talk)
I have been working on this list for the last two weeks and believe that it meets the FL criteria. There currently are not that many actor filmographies that are featured and I plan to expand on this in the future, starting here with Schwarzenegger. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. Let me know if you see any issues and I will get to them as soon as possible. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is a list of..." FLs don't start like this. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I had referred to this revision of Christopher Walken filmography when it had passed as a featured list. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 16:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I've removed my oppose, since alot of progress has been made. I still have reservations with portions of the lead, which bring up awards and box office gross, which are not mentioned anywhere else in the article. So, per WP:LEAD, I believe they shouldn't be there. But, given the excellent state of the list otherwise, I don't want to hold up its nomination if everyone else is ok with it. So, I'll just refrain from either opposing or support. Drewcifer (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Weak Oppose I guess I'm somewhat to blame for the confusion, given I was the author and nominator of the Christopher Walken filmography. That said, that was the first filmography list promoted to FL, and standards and conventions have improved since then. I've continued to work on that particular list to bring it up to snuff, which I believe it is now, but I feel this list is somewhat lagging behind, still basing itself on an old standard. So, a few suggestions:
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BusinessWeek is one word (ref 13).
- Fixed. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only publications should be italicized. Websites and publishing companies (Canwest News Service, NBC News, Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, CBS News) should not.Dabomb87 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all occurrences for the ones that remained in the article (since some were being used to source the salaries). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [70].
- Nominator(s): -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 03:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support - previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 00:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: No concerns here; looks good as usual. – Nurmsook! talk... 01:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:06, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [71].
This is a nomination which I will be a part of, but without a nomination credit. I truly believe that this article should have been promoted if jj137 was still editing. To WikiCup nominators, jj137 will not be answering the comments unless he returns. I have fixed all the comments from the last FLC, and truly hope this list will be promoted. I repeat, I will not be accepting the nomination. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- My issues in the previous FLC were resolved, in addition to me supporting the original nomination. I also was unable to find any flaws in this revision of the list.--TRUCO 23:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments Some of these were not resolved from the last FLC.
Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Baseball-Reference sources are still inconsistently formatted.Dabomb87 (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
|
Support - Another in the series of fine manager lists that FLC has produced lately. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:58, 2 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [72].
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. It is a full list of all US Naval Academy graduates who became astronauts (over 50 of the them, more than any other university). All images are free licensed. All entries have refs. I'm in WikiCup. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 02:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, regarding the above comments, NASA isn't a primary source; even if it was, it wouldn't be a problem as the information is highly uncontroversial. This seems to be addressed, however. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why are all the other Naval Academy alumini links listed in the General references. They should be removed, escept for the astronauts.
- I meant to do this but forgot. I've cut the unused ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This list of alumni is a not a college or university, so the template at the bottom should be removed. That one especially, but none of the navboxes link to this list. I generally believe that navboxes should only be on the article if the article is in the navbox.
- Cut it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." None of the astronauts are current students, and I don't think they're faculty either, and surely all of them graduated.
- Fixed it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a more specific lead image than a generic hat toss?
- Looking, hard to find one that says "Naval Academy and Astronauts". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ADDED an astro pic to the lead. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking, hard to find one that says "Naval Academy and Astronauts". — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the need for any of the collquial names of the Naval Academy, especially Canoe U. and Boat School.
- Cut. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This list is drawn from graduates, non-graduate former students, current students, and faculty of the Naval Academy." What does this have anything to do with astronaut alumni?
- Tweaked. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is very good, but the lead isn't very descriptive of it specifically. I see that most of copied verbatim from List of United States Naval Academy alumni, and I really don't like that. Reywas92Talk 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls revisit, worked your issues. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lead really needs to be more specific to the astronauts. You can't just copy and paste the lead from the main article. "A few are also given the option of entering the United States Army or United States Air Force. Most students are admitted through the congressional appointment system." This is not relevant to astronauts. Many good lists have statistics in the lead. What year(s) had the most future astronausts graduate? How about a breakdown by NASA project - Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle? How many naval grads actually walked on the moon? Did any naval grads go on the the same flight together? Reywas92Talk 16:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as a co-nom since I did a large quantity of the work when this list was still integrated with List of United States Naval Academy alumni. -MBK004 18:33, 21
February 2009 (UTC)
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Pretty good list
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The work should only be used if the website is a publication or is different from the parent company, i.e., "Biographical Data" in the NASA refs should not be there. Same with USNA Astronauts.Dabomb87 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See email and juliancolton's stmt above. NASA is not a primary ref and both are completely uncontroversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I didn't say don't use the sources, I am talking about the formatting. See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry I misunderstood, apologies. Done (in a few minutes). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I didn't say don't use the sources, I am talking about the formatting. See this sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See email and juliancolton's stmt above. NASA is not a primary ref and both are completely uncontroversial. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [73].
My third and final nomination of head coaches in Pittsburgh sports. I will address any issues to the best of my abilities. Thank you! blackngold29 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure that I like this new format. Where is the playoff win percentage column? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 03:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from SRE.K.A.L.24
|
---|
Comments from -- SRE.K.A.L.24[c]
Good luck with the FLC, and there will be more comments from me soon. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support with one comment; switch the last and second last sentences, as the current head coach sentences are usually last. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008
|
---|
Comments -
Also would like to see a playoff win percentage column, as it would be a nice touch. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The changes all look good. One more thing from note e: "Coach Eddie Johnson was replaced by Craig Patrick, who finished the season 7–10–3 and lost in the first round of the playoffs four games to one." Technically, the team did those things, not the head coach. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support - Meets the standards after the fixes above and below. Good work. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:42, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [74].
I am nominating this for featured list because after putting it on a peer review with all concerns adressed, I think it is more prepared to meet the WP:FL?. Thanks in advance, Cannibaloki 03:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good, and I'm happy to support. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 00:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Cannibaloki 01:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comments Looks good, but I have the same old comments I usually make:
|
Comments
- Why were the Extended Plays and Other appearances removed from the article? From what I can see most other featured lists have them so I don't really see any reason to remove them, especially when they were sourced. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What extended plays? If you're refering to Lonely Day, it is a maxi-single not EP.
- The section Other appearances was added.
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 21:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 28 February 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [75].
- Nominator(s): Another Believer (talk)
I am nominating this awards list for FL status because I believe it qualifies and I have made several improvements to the list based on suggestions made in the peer review process. Thanks! -Another Believer (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.TRUCO 01:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concerns have been addressed, and this list cleary satisfies all criteria. Great work! Drewcifer (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Resolved comments from Drewcifer
|
---|
Comment Looks pretty good, only two minor comments: Year columns should be centered. And the Other recognitions section isn't mentioned in the lead, and per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all major points/sections in the article. Drewcifer (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [76].
A fairly straight-forward discog from a relatively new band with relatively few releases. As always, any feedback and opinions are welcome and appreciated. Drewcifer (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--TRUCO 21:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and your support. Drewcifer (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Can you get rid of "Max Knies Photography Sample" from the photo, please? Its very distracting
- The author of the photo wanted it to stay. It's an otherwise awesome photo, so I think it's worth it. Then again, since it's GFDL-approved, anyone could come along and Photoshop it out... But I'll leave it as is in good faith, since the author trusted me with his photo, and it doesn't particularly bother me. Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether It's Blitz can be included in the discography yet as it hasn't been released
- Yeah, technically it shouldn't be included, given the verbatim definition of a discography. But I've realized in situations like these it's best to just let the will of the people take over. The entry was added literally like an hour or two after the announcement, and I guarantee it'll be put back up right away if I take it out. So why fight it?
All good otherwise. Nice to see you back. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the notes, and the warm welcome! Drewcifer (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the BPI certification ref (no 9) points to the listing for "Pretty Hate Machine£ by Nine Inch Nails?!?!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops! Got a little carried away with the cut paste I guess. Fixed it. Drewcifer (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - the self-titled EP's peak position of #1 was on the very minor UK Budget Albums chart (as denoted by the ¥ symbol next to it on the zobbel.de page) - this should probably be noted, as currently it could give the impression that the release actually topped the main UK Albums Chart (which in fact it seems to have missed completely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Took it out. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - the self-titled EP's peak position of #1 was on the very minor UK Budget Albums chart (as denoted by the ¥ symbol next to it on the zobbel.de page) - this should probably be noted, as currently it could give the impression that the release actually topped the main UK Albums Chart (which in fact it seems to have missed completely) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, thanks alot for the help. Drewcifer (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.everyhit.com/ a reliable source?Dabomb87 (talk) 02:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rearranged the citations so that it's no longer needed. But, for the record I believe it is reliable, but I can't remember where I found it officially recognized. I'll look into that for next time. Drewcifer (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/ Right hand side menu column, at the bottom. It's a shame you can't link to the actual results page with this site :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, good looking out. I've added that link to MOS:DISCOG, so hopefully we don't have that issue again, at lease with this site. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of your other comments, by the way. I kind of didn't notice them until just now. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked User:Ealdgyth about EveryHit. I want to resolve it once and for all. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- She says that more than one reference to EveryHit would be good. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems as the reference was removed, so I will strike. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Took care of your other comments, by the way. I kind of didn't notice them until just now. Drewcifer (talk) 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, good looking out. I've added that link to MOS:DISCOG, so hopefully we don't have that issue again, at lease with this site. Drewcifer (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/ Right hand side menu column, at the bottom. It's a shame you can't link to the actual results page with this site :( Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved stuff from Cannibaloki
|
---|
Comments from Cannibaloki (talk · contribs)
|
- Support, all done. Cannibaloki 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: Since everyhit.com is no longer being used in this discog, there is no point keeping the nomination to continue the discussion about it. Best place is WT:DISCOG. Since there are no other outstanding concerns, I'm hereby promoting the list. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:02, 3 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [77].
- Nominator(s): NuclearWarfare (Talk)''
Did you know "...that you can get a million dollars for solving a millenia-old math problem?", but that even locking yourself in a garage as Charlie Epps did many times in a Numb3rs episode does not help solve it.
Well, I have spent the last few days working on this article, and I really feel that it meets the Featured List criteria now. There isn't a lot of prose, so I didn't feel that grabbing a copy editor was necessary, but feel free to tell me how awful I am at writing them. So...here you guys go :)
Also, this article had existed for a long time before I started my work on it, so if you feel that you were a primary contributor to the article, just add yourself. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 06:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has come to my attention that this article does not meet one of the seven criteria of a FL: "Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links." This seems to go against one of the philosophies that made Wikipedia grow, Wikipedia:Red link. I'd take an editor being interested enough to write an article over visual appeal anyway, so I do not wish to remove the redlinks. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlink is all well and good, but the idea is that Featured content should exhibit some of Wikipedia's best work. Links that go nowhere and gaps in the surrounding knowledge are not conductive to this idea. Ironholds (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The prose needs to be referenced.
- The redlink:bluelink ratio is too close for my liking. WP:REDLINK is all well and good, but this many redlinks seems to violate section 6 of the FL criteria which requires that a featured list "has a minimal proportion of red links". Options: either write articles or just delink.
- Replied in original post. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is BIGWentertainment considered a reliable source?
- I was told that it is kind of the Amazon of Australia. I figured that was good enough. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 07:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That be all. Ironholds (talk) 07:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)
|
- My issues were resolved but I will wait until there is some outcome on the discussion opened above on the redlinks, because that is substantial to FLs.--TRUCO 02:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
File:Numb3rs Insignia.jpg is not acceptable due to it's digital watermarking.- This issue should be resolved soon by the Graphic Lab: [78]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- pd_Thor has kindly given us an SVG version to use. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This new SVG simply is not the Numbers logo, it is misleading and frankly offensive to the show and the logo designers to claim otherwise. It would have been better just to edit the previous image to rubber stamp out the offending watermark. This new image is not an improvement by any means. Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew, I really cannot see a difference between the original and the SVG version, besides the watermark. I'll create a "rubber-stamped version, but can you explain why you dislike the SVG one? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This new SVG simply is not the Numbers logo, it is misleading and frankly offensive to the show and the logo designers to claim otherwise. It would have been better just to edit the previous image to rubber stamp out the offending watermark. This new image is not an improvement by any means. Sorry.-Andrew c [talk] 22:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- pd_Thor has kindly given us an SVG version to use. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This issue should be resolved soon by the Graphic Lab: [78]. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Numb3rs" should be italicized.- It was like that, but someone removed it. Readded. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Year ranges should be ndashes per WP:DASH- I'm unsure where you mean. Instead of say, "September 2007 to January 2008", should I do "September 2007–January 2008"?
- In the lead and now general ref. It is "2005-2006" etc. but should be 2005–2006. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. I've done it though. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead and now general ref. It is "2005-2006" etc. but should be 2005–2006. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure where you mean. Instead of say, "September 2007 to January 2008", should I do "September 2007–January 2008"?
"Seasons One, Two, Three, and Four have" - why the capital letters?- Fixed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is still some more of these in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, I hope
- There is still some more of these in the lead. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since this FLC the consensus is not to use transclusion for the episodes. This will also allow alot of errors from the transclusion to be fixed. e.g. uncentered headings.- I could substitute all of them, but as this is a currently running series, I am unsure if season five should be substituted. If we left season 5 transcluded, it would make updating things a whole lot easier. Would it be acceptable to leave that transcluded? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can compromise if you really wish, but one of the reasons to not transclude was accessibility. This would alow people to update it who don't know how transclusion works (and might reduce the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All five seasons transcluded. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can compromise if you really wish, but one of the reasons to not transclude was accessibility. This would alow people to update it who don't know how transclusion works (and might reduce the work). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I could substitute all of them, but as this is a currently running series, I am unsure if season five should be substituted. If we left season 5 transcluded, it would make updating things a whole lot easier. Would it be acceptable to leave that transcluded? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Visual Appeal would be greatly improved if alternate rows were coloured along with the headings (like this)- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter but normally, like in the example I showed you, the colours reflected the DVD colour (so here season 3 would be maroon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. Colors changed to match up with Region 1 DVDs, except for season five, for which I picked an arbitrary color. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't really matter but normally, like in the example I showed you, the colours reflected the DVD colour (so here season 3 would be maroon. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there other media releases? (e.g. Hulu, iTunes, Amazon Unbox etc.)- Nothing that I could find any reliable sources for. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first search I did gave this. That mentions Unbox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these are notable (sorry, that's what I meant) enough to mention, but I did add a paragraph on iTunes and Unbox. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked the wording, but feel free to revert/change/discuss. Also are you in the US, becuase I think they are available from the CBS website, but cannot check as I am not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually about the previous three episodes are available for free at cbs.com. Is that available for inclusion? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be included, but is there anybody you know (I'm thinking onwiki) that is in the US and could confirm the number available? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right no, there are 16 (Wow! That's higher than usual) episodes that a US resident can watch for free, though many are from season four, and were rebroadcast recently during weeks where there were new episodes. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be included, but is there anybody you know (I'm thinking onwiki) that is in the US and could confirm the number available? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually about the previous three episodes are available for free at cbs.com. Is that available for inclusion? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tweaked the wording, but feel free to revert/change/discuss. Also are you in the US, becuase I think they are available from the CBS website, but cannot check as I am not. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think these are notable (sorry, that's what I meant) enough to mention, but I did add a paragraph on iTunes and Unbox. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The first search I did gave this. That mentions Unbox. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing that I could find any reliable sources for. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The piped links of the seasons don't work in the "Series overview" table.- The formatting changed. I'll fix the links. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 20:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "DVD releases" table experiences some strange text wrapping. I suggest making only the "Region 1 Extras" wrap onto one or more lines. To be honest I'm not fussed about having that column at all and would remove it completely.- I'll move the entire thing to the Numb3rs article. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Season 1 and 2 are completely uncited. The IGN links for those seasons contain no information that can verify the airdates, directors etc.- IGN replaced with DVD booklet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the DVD booklet really cite the airdates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TVGuide added for the airdates. I personally do not have the DVD; I had to call a friend who does. He isn't around at the moment, so in the interest of expediency, I have added TVGuide. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the DVD booklet really cite the airdates? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN replaced with DVD booklet. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Production codes: Are these right or verifiable in any way. It appears they are just the season number episode number. I thought they were usually something like they are here.- Usually, but not always. IGN should verify these ones, at least for the later seasons. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN does not seem to verify these (e.g. in [http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/142/14274718.html season 5). I would strongly suggest removing this column per se, but you could add in a column equivalent to listing the "# in series". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Numb3rs production codes, for example, comes up with several links to IGN. IN the two lines below the title/hyperlink, you can see: "TV Network: CBS Airdate: May 18, 2007. Episode Number: 324. Production Code: 324. Runtime: 60 minutes. Genre: Crime Series: Numb3rs ..." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I am less than convinced but will ignore whether they are right for now. Assuming they are, I still don't think they are worthy of inclusion. This FLC also wanted the prod. codes removed. I especially share this view on this list, because they are all exactly Series #, Season #. They presume (not all cited) that they were all produced in the order they aired, but there is no reason this should be the case. I would still strongly suggest swapping it for a "Seasons #" column, which contains all the same information without having any controversies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted the format a little.[79][80] I hope it is good now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted the format a little.[79][80] I hope it is good now. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 05:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm I am less than convinced but will ignore whether they are right for now. Assuming they are, I still don't think they are worthy of inclusion. This FLC also wanted the prod. codes removed. I especially share this view on this list, because they are all exactly Series #, Season #. They presume (not all cited) that they were all produced in the order they aired, but there is no reason this should be the case. I would still strongly suggest swapping it for a "Seasons #" column, which contains all the same information without having any controversies. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Numb3rs production codes, for example, comes up with several links to IGN. IN the two lines below the title/hyperlink, you can see: "TV Network: CBS Airdate: May 18, 2007. Episode Number: 324. Production Code: 324. Runtime: 60 minutes. Genre: Crime Series: Numb3rs ..." NuclearWarfare (Talk) 16:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IGN does not seem to verify these (e.g. in [http://uk.tv.ign.com/objects/142/14274718.html season 5). I would strongly suggest removing this column per se, but you could add in a column equivalent to listing the "# in series". Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, but not always. IGN should verify these ones, at least for the later seasons. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you stubify some redlinks
- I would prefer to wait until the discussion at WT:Featured list criteria is over. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is completely stalled. If you have to rely on a massive policy change to push an FL through then you're grasping at straws; simply create some stubs, it'll take an hour at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update please - are you planning to do this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, I missed this comment. I have set aside some time in a few days; I should be able to do it then. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update please - are you planning to do this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is completely stalled. If you have to rely on a massive policy change to push an FL through then you're grasping at straws; simply create some stubs, it'll take an hour at most. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer to wait until the discussion at WT:Featured list criteria is over. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/06/08/now_on_itunes_csi_survivor_ncis_aamp_num a reliable source?- I'm not sure if this is enough, but it has partnered with IGN, so it isn't just a run-of-the-mill site. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise http://www.bigwentertainment.com.au/product/numb3rs_705875_229972.html?- Someone, who I cannot remember now, told me that it was a smaller version of Amazon in Australia. I didn't dig deeper than that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one of the websites of Aussie retailer Big W. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone, who I cannot remember now, told me that it was a smaller version of Amazon in Australia. I didn't dig deeper than that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Web titles should not be in all caps; convert them to title case.- Doing. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 04:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Image fails WP:NFC, specifically Criteria #8: "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
- The image is in the public domain. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- American television series →→ American television series
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps wikilink pilot episode
- Good idea and I have done that. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As of February 16, 2009, five seasons consisting of 94 episodes have been broadcast. needs updating ;)
- Hey, I'm only two days late :) NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first season was the shortest of the five, and spanned 13 episodes from January to May 2005. could you perhaps say it was a midseason replacement, perhaps even what it replaced?
- Added and cited. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe link "2005–2006 and 2006–2007"
- I forgot those articles even existed. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Season six is projected to begin in early September. What year?
- 2009, it is. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects:
- CBS
- Federal Bureau of Investigations
- Region 1 Regions 2 4 (plus WP:OVERLINK)
- Amazon Unbox
- TBD (Plus WP:OVERLINK)
- Martha Mitchell
- Fred Keller
- Frederick K. Keller (the same person)
- Michael Watkins
- All redirects done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs:
- Dennis Smith
- Peter Ellis
- Andrew Black
- Amazon in references
- Done. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References:
- Dates should be in the same format as the article
- I can't believe I missed that. All changed to mdy format. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also unsure about the reliability of the Starpulse article.
- replaced with CNet reference. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bigwentertainment references: please attribute to Big W
- That makes more sense. Thanks. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dates should be in the same format as the article
That's all. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:40, 1 March 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 Matthewedwards 06:56, 3 March 2009 [81].
I am nominating this for featured list because it has been peer reviewed and I feel it meets the criteria. Thanks, Efe (talk) 02:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco
|
---|
|
- Support -- Previous issues resolved to meet WP:WIAFL standards.--₮RUCӨ 17:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk) |
---|
Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)
|
Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year, two of which began their peak position in 2001, and are thus excluded. is not a proper sentence. The bit inbetween the commas act as if its in parentheses, so without that part, the sentence is "Although nine singles reached number one in 52 issues of the magazine in the calendar year and are thus excluded." which doesn't make any sense.
- Removed the last comma. The first one is grammatical. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Billboard Hot 100 is a chart that... →→ The Billboard Hot 100 is a record chart that...
- I think the word record is carried out in this phrase "the best-performing singles". --Efe (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2002 is an Easter egg. Try to use the full titled link instead
- Its rather awkward. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- May it be worth linking to calendar year?
- I think that "calendar" is redundant. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- then-member reads awful
- Is it grammatically amiss? --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "number one" vs "number-one": Be consistent (I think the latter is more correct)
- No, "number one" is the noun version (so-and-so reached number one) but "number-one" is used as a compound adjective (she achieved a number-one single for the second time that year). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the number-one singles in 2002 were extended chart-toppers. what does this mean? The songs are 5-minutes long?
- extended chart-topper'. I think its clear. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with "Lose Yourself" is the longest-running single
- Its clear. I think music articles are just too different from other articles here WP. That phrasing is widely used. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hot in Herre" and "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez →→ "Ain't It Funny" by Jennifer Lopez and "Hot in Herre"
- Fixed because its ambiguous. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "Lose Yourself" part of the "Rock era"? It's a rap song
- Its regardless of the genre of the song. Rock era began in 1955 up to now. --Efe (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Table entries are verified and correct.
Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:14, 1 March 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.
- ^ "Plan your visit (last section For more information)" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-03-21.