Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2011
Contents
- 1 Hugo Award for Best Fan Writer
- 2 Listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde
- 3 List of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves recipients (1944)
- 4 List of Oakland Athletics managers
- 5 Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (E–F)
- 6 Venues of the 1994 Winter Olympics
- 7 List of Oakland Athletics first-round draft picks
- 8 U.S. state reptiles
- 9 Grammy Award for Best Pop Collaboration with Vocals
- 10 Grammy Award for Best Rap/Sung Collaboration
- 11 Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results
- 12 List of New England Patriots seasons
- 13 List of Baltimore Orioles first-round draft picks
- 14 Hugo Award for Best Fan Artist
- 15 List of international cricket centuries by David Gower
- 16 List of Governors of Washington
- 17 The Simpsons (season 13)
- 18 List of 1952 Winter Olympics medal winners
- 19 Latin Grammy Award for Producer of the Year
- 20 List of Metallica concert tours
- 21 List of battlecruisers of Japan
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:24, 26 March 2011 [1].
- Nominator(s): PresN 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13th of 14 lists! I promise, you're almost done with me. The written works, magazines, editors, movies, and artists are done, so we now come to the Best Fan Writer award. This list is almost completely identical to the Fan Artist list- it even started the same year. I've incorporated suggestions and changes from previous nominations into this list, as usual. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was really nice what you did with Hugo Award for Best Professional Editor - listing works that contributed to them winning the award. Is this not possible here? Jujutacular talk 14:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately I don't think it is; for professional editor I could find professional works that they edited the prior year and note them down, but for "fan" writer... sometimes I can see that they published/edited a fanzine, so it's probably for the writing they did for that... unless is isn't, as they just edited and didn't write anything. Sometimes its for stories published in fanzines that they weren't paid for. Sometimes it's for people who sent in lengthy reviews to the "letters to the editor" section of several big fanzines every month- no luck finding any proof of that, much less that that was the writing that they were awarded for. Nowadays it can be for a blog that they run, which is easier to prove, but... why did Panshin win the first one? I can guess that he declined the nomination the following year because he got his first novel published, but what was he up to that was unpaid the year prior? Almost by definition it is impossible to find, since the award was by fans to fans, not to pros, and they didn't write down why. I couldn't fill out the whole column even with guesses, much less reliable sourced writings, so I had to leave it out. --PresN 21:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, pending other users' reviews. I gave the page a few read throughs, and I could find nothing to gripe about, except for my comment above. It is understandable that in this case it would be infeasible to find reliable sources for each fan writer. Nice list, seems up to par with the others. Jujutacular talk 03:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, a simple, well-sourced, interesting list. Glimmer721 talk 01:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support virtually out of the box. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:24, 26 March 2011 [2].
- Nominator(s): BelovedFreak 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fairly short list of all the listed buildings in Poulton-le-Fylde, which I believe meets the FL criteria. It has benefited from some early advice from Peter I. Vardy, on whose Listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) and Listed buildings in Runcorn (rural area) this list was modelled. It has also received a peer review by Brianboulton. There may be a problem with accessibility in the table which I haven't been able to fix on my own (see WT:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)/Data tables tutorial# Sortability/unsortability and scope), so any advice there would be appreciated. --BelovedFreak 13:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- And I guess I'd sort "probably 18th C" before "mid-18th C".
- Could you give me a suggestion of when to sort the "probably"s to? At present they sort to eg. 1750, the same as the "mid-"s. I have a "probably early 18th century" sorting to 1710. It's messing with my head a bit now. --BelovedFreak 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd sort the "probably 18th C" to 1700. That is just my opinion though... Early stuff, would sort like you have... It's not critical. No major issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give me a suggestion of when to sort the "probably"s to? At present they sort to eg. 1750, the same as the "mid-"s. I have a "probably early 18th century" sorting to 1710. It's messing with my head a bit now. --BelovedFreak 18:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from — Rod talk 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comment A few comments and questions.
In the lead:
Table
Images
I hope these comments are understandable?— Rod talk 11:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Thanks for all your work. Maybe one day we will get to all the listed buildings!!!— Rod talk 09:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I must admit I'm starting small, but it would be great to see that happen! --BelovedFreak 09:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
St Johns Chapel: Period needed after "The chapel is on one storey and has arched windows with timber Y-tracery".The Manor: Add "in" to "This house was built 1895."?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for catching those! --BelovedFreak 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Hassocks5489: I shall review this list in the next few days, once I return from a brief wikibreak. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Here are my comments and suggestions. A good, attractively presented list; all sorting, Google coordinates and references/links work correctly.
Some discussion of the interior timber-framing at 2 Market Place, which is a significant part of the list description, would be good; just a sentence or so, maybe. Likewise, a few words about the possibly late 17th-century staircase inside 25, 27, 29 and 31 Market Place, and the Jacobean interior of The Manor (staircase, gallery etc.). Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 13:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support. All of my comments have been addressed to a high standard. Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! And thanks again for the tips on what to add. --BelovedFreak 09:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets standards. No complaints from me. Courcelles 21:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 18:24, 26 March 2011 [3].
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this as the fourth of five lists for featured list because I feel this list may meet the criteria already. The number of read links is 8% and within the limit of what I have seen to be acceptable here. Due to the few number of recipients in the years 1940 and 1941 the two years had to be merged into one list. Once completed the five lists 1940–1941 (currently a featured list), 1942 (currently a featured list), 1943 (currently a featured list), 1944 and 1945 will comprise all of the generally accepted 882 recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross with Oak Leaves. I welcome any constructive feedback. Thanks in advance. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Mildly confused why Dessloch was awarded in 1941 but is listed here?
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support meets my expectations of this kind of list right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
- Support I didn't see any problems other than those already mentioned when I looked at this last week. Since those are resolved... Courcelles 22:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support --Cheetah (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [4].
- Nominator(s): Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, similar to other baseball manager featured lists. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Cheetah (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support--Cheetah (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them, except the ref 4 (now ref 5) item which is a function of the reference template. I also addressed the 2nd comment a little differently, since the fact that they started playing in 1901 is effectively mentioned earlier. Rlendog (talk) 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's counter-intuitive, but in this case, you actually need to remove the . from "Norton & Co." in the template, it's the only way to kill the ".." problem. One of those rare cases where what looks wrong in the edit window actually produces what you want in the rendered page. (PS< already did it, to make sure it worked!) Courcelles 04:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I actually didn't notice that one. I thought you were referring to the period after the parentheses from "3rd ed." Rlendog (talk) 15:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Key: Very minor point, but I don't think "League Championships" or the "Championships" after World Series should be capitalized, as they aren't really proper nouns.Another minor thing, but reference 37 has a hyphen in the title, while the other Retrosheet cites have em dashes. Shouldn't 37 get a dash as well?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
Courcelles 11:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Good work. Courcelles 00:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [5].
- Nominator(s): — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My current open nomination has four supports and no open complaints, so I'm nominating the fifth list in the series for featured status. All comments to be expediently addressed. Many thanks for your interest. — KV5 • Talk • 21:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Don't see any problems here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to return by the nominator after the merge, and spotted only one new issue: the note above the table needs to be updated by mentioning the letter F (only E is mentioned now).Other than that, the merge has been done effectively and I feel comfortable retaining my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]- There are two tables; each has its own caption. — KV5 • Talk • 01:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*One niggle, in the seasons column, why is Ennis's 2007 sorting between Eaton and Eyre? Courcelles 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Hacks are sometimes required to make sorting function, good work. Courcelles 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I preferred these separate, as it allowed a more focused lede to each group, but, so be it. Courcelles 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agreed. — KV5 • Talk • 23:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I preferred these separate, as it allowed a more focused lede to each group, but, so be it. Courcelles 23:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, I see no issues beyond what was already addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating support after reading through post-merge article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 14:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI think I am going to be labelled as the CFORKing guy, but why is this list separate from the "F" one? It has only 32 entries and with the F one would barely pass 100. There are a few well beyond 150 entries so I don't think it would be too much. Splitting under 1900 players in something like 20 FLs is too much. I think the aim should be closer to 10. Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The goal was for lists with 10 or fewer players to be subsumed into others. 32 entries is more than enough to constitute a stand-alone list. — KV5 • Talk • 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed with KV5, this passes 3b. Courcelles 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with TRM. The scopes of these particular lists are very clear, and each fully meets the requirements for stand-alone lists as set out in WP:SAL. We have featured lists of all sizes, and there's no criterion in WP:FL? that states a list may only be split when it reaches a certain size. In addition, you must view the split itself as a whole. This is not the "E" sublist split from the "F" sublist; rather, it is the "E" list split from the original list, and viewed in that sense, it truly does not violate 3b, because it could not reasonably be included as part of the main article. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the following alternative scenario: if the original editor who split the main list into 10 distinct lists (instead of 20) and would have nominated the one named "E-F" I am sure nobody would have complained in that nomination about splitting E and F into separate articles because 111 is too much for a FL. FLs with more than 100 entires are passed on a regular basis these days, so I don't see how 111 would be a problem. The (original) intentn of CFORK (to my understanding) is to not split content more than it is necessary just to bump up the featured content count. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're objecting on the grounds of forking. This doesn't cover "too many lists" as far as I've ever read. Can you clarify your position with respect to WP:WIAFL? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that it is too few, but that the 1.9k players are split over too many lists. Nergaal (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. When did 32 become too few elements to have a stand-alone list? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above objection; Policy clearly states that articles should be kept together. This translates into merging as many of the lists, as size and sorting permits. Precedence can be seen in the lists of gay/bi-sexual people. Sandman888 (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" is an FL criteria, which parallels the logic in avoiding small splits. The reference to wp:otherstuff is quite hollow; it is common to refer to other FL list to determine application of policy, but you already knew that. Sandman888 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AVOIDSPLIT is part of a guideline, not a policy, does clearly not say "articles should be kept together" but is all about ensuring articles meet notability criteria when split off, to whit: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic." This article clearly meets the notability criteria, so no problem. And yes, other stuff exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(→)TRM, splitting "per the alphabet" is your preference, isn't it? Show me a rule where I could see the "split lists per alphabet" line. There's none! I see no guideline supporting your position, either. Greatorangepumpkin, "E-F" will have less players than "C" and "B"(which are alread at WP:FL). If you're worried about lagging, you can submit "B" and "C" at WP:FLRC.Cheetah (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To get this out of the way at the start rather than the end of the post, I have grumbled about these lists, a lot. Possibly too much. Grumble though I may, it's beyond dispute there is consensus for the format. That said, the end of 3b ("could not reasonably be included as part of a related article") would seem to support Cheetah's specific suggestion of merging E and F. —WFC— 10:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Thank you KV5 for your patience. I just went over all Phillies lists and the only lists that can still be merged are T-Z. Right now it's split into 4 lists, I think it can be 2 at the most. That's a comment for the future.--Cheetah (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cheetah; to address your final concern, if you look at the very bottom of the nom section, I have proposed merging T-V and W-Z to complete the series. Those merges will be done when (if) this passes and before I nominate G. One project at a time. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I support your proposal.--Cheetah (talk) 02:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Cheetah; to address your final concern, if you look at the very bottom of the nom section, I have proposed merging T-V and W-Z to complete the series. Those merges will be done when (if) this passes and before I nominate G. One project at a time. — KV5 • Talk • 21:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 3b, per my rationale below; E and F could reasonably be merged. —WFC— 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutal Based on the discussion that has taken place here, and the merge, I have agreed not to oppose this on 3b. I trust the judgement of The Rambling Man, Giants2008, Courcelles and Wizardman as far as the quality of this list goes. —WFC— 23:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If E and F were merged (or even if not), could we at least get consensus that all the other current and future ones are acceptable so we don't have to go through this again? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since all these articles are technically cforks, I think if they are split in a reasonable manner everybody will be happy. I am of the opinion that if the total is around 100 entries then that is an acceptable split. If Y Z has 8 7=15 entries in total, that does not mean it is an acceptable split. U-Z has about 100 so I think that is an acceptable one, instead of slicing each possible letter that has 10 entries. Nergaal (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved discussion on 3(b). Capped by WFC |
|---|
**I'm near enough with Nergaal. There is unquestionably consensus for an alphabetical split of sorts. The question now is just ensuring that the individual splits are reasonable. —WFC— 17:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Separate suggestion I intend to continue the above discussion, whether that takes place here or elsewhere (for instance an RfC). But I do feel that we should do what we can to ensure that the Phillies lists are promoted as quickly as is possible. And that, as far as we can in the circumstances, minimise the drama. I would therefore propose that another Phillies list be granted an exception to the usual convention of only one list at a time. There is no issue with the overall quality of these lists, save for whether some individual ones meet 3b. To assist with the reduced drama aspect, I would suggest that the list nominated should be the longest remaining list, as that can reasonably be assumed to be the one least likely to be affected by a merge proposal. It takes an average of three to four weeks to promote an FL: even if were to take us a couple of months to work this out, there should be 3-4 relatively uncontroversial ones which can be promoted in the meantime. —WFC— 00:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How short of a nomination period are we talking about? I don't feel comfortable with making the period too short for any list, even if it's in a series that is typically trustworthy quality-wise. For example, TRM continues to find issues to report in the MLB first-round draft picks series of lists, which are all of high quality. It's also possible that a reviewer who hasn't read lists in the series will spot problems that us regulars are missing. Then again, I also feel that this list should be promoted, and that the opposers are taking 3b beyond what it was intended to do (ensure that forky lists that shouldn't exist at all don't become featured, not determine how large a particular list should be), so what do I know? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have no problem with that as long as we don't go overboard. We don't need six of these lists up at once, but if a list other than this one was nommed now I wouldn't object. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I didn't mean a quick pass procedure. I just meant an exemption from the usual rule of not being allowed to nominate a second list where the first has opposition, as the nature of the opposition here would have no effect on the longer lists (safer bets include H, M and S). —WFC— 02:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Some level of merging, as has occurred, was probably a good thing. The list was always of high quality, this seemed like a pretty odd thing to hang up the nomination over (as it could be easily remedied if a different standard was decided on. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here.
and I'm sure that KV and Cheetah will find a solution by the time T-Z become an issue.just realised that T-Z have already been dealt with. The compromises that came as a direct result of the deadlock here have produced a stable situation. —WFC— 19:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the respective positions of those in favour of and opposed to a merge, thrashing out a merge at this FLC was undoubtedly the least-worst option. If it didn't come here, it would only have happened in future at FLRC, or through an RFC which ultimately would have been focussed on these lists anyway. As a result of this discussion, the lists from G-S can now go through FLC uncontroversially, an RFC will only happen if others mimic the approach taken here.
- I stroked out my oppose vote since my major concern was solved. I think though the two tables should be fully merged - you could leave a separator in the middle by selecting that row to be unsortable. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On that, I heartily disagree, because these are two separate lists contained in the same article, similar to the split lists of the Rawlings Gold Glove Award series (example: List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher). — KV5 • Talk • 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment glad that we're slowly reaching a consensus. I'm not saying it's right, but if we can move on from this, so much the better. My primary concern, perhaps my only concern is the subjective merging of lists. This is now setting the precedent that editors can hand-pick the "best" merges. I guess, as we have consensus, that's the way forward. However, I don't want to see people, in the future, arguing over whether L and M should be merged with N etc... Remember WP:SAL etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this, but as my disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC, I've responded on The Rambling Man's talk page. —WFC— 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I disagree, in part, with WFC's disagreement, but this disagreement over a disagreement has nothing to do with this FLC. I've replied at my talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bought a new computer yesterday and I have no lags now. I red this list weeks ago and I saw no issues. I make a second run and still no issues. A great list even if I haven't seen any baseball games :P.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:15, 23 March 2011 [6].
- Nominator(s): Arsenikk (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This list is inspired by the similar FLs for 2008 and 2010 Olympics, although it is slightly modified to give a more comprehensive coverage. Arsenikk (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from KV5 |
|---|
"Ten competition and 14 non-competitions were used" - huh? Do you mean ten competition and fourteen non-competition venues? Also, ten and fourteen are comparable quantities and should be formatted alike.
Hope these comments help. — KV5 • Talk • 02:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I think there should be a section on the Olympic village. Nergaal (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Give me a day or so to create an article about the Olympic village, and I'll see if it is appropriate to paste some information into the article or not. Arsenikk (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for that taking so long time, I seem to have gotten distracted by something else on WP and suddenly time flew. Anyway, I've created the article Lillehammer Olympic Village (which covers both of them) and added three sentences on the issue in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the village article should be merged into this list. It should definitely be included here, and I am not sure it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want the information from that article pasted in here, with the level of detail in the subarticle? Also, there is more to be said about the village, there was a certain amount of public debate about the localization of it, and also there could be said more about the post-used (it did after all turn into a small subdivision), so I am comfortable with keeping the subarticle. Arsenikk (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I think is appropriate is to have a short section on it that contains the essential information about the village. Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copyedited a bit, and there is now one paragraph on non-competition venues in the lead, plus half a paragraph in the "post-Olympic" section. Technical details are available in the list. Any more information on this, and it would be undue weight. Arsenikk (talk) 12:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. What I think is appropriate is to have a short section on it that contains the essential information about the village. Nergaal (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want the information from that article pasted in here, with the level of detail in the subarticle? Also, there is more to be said about the village, there was a certain amount of public debate about the localization of it, and also there could be said more about the post-used (it did after all turn into a small subdivision), so I am comfortable with keeping the subarticle. Arsenikk (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the village article should be merged into this list. It should definitely be included here, and I am not sure it is notable enough to deserve a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for that taking so long time, I seem to have gotten distracted by something else on WP and suddenly time flew. Anyway, I've created the article Lillehammer Olympic Village (which covers both of them) and added three sentences on the issue in the lead. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. Give me a day or so to create an article about the Olympic village, and I'll see if it is appropriate to paste some information into the article or not. Arsenikk (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Refs 40-51 have no publisher. Ref 40, 42, 43, 50 need a format parameter. The Bibliographies need format parameters. "Håkon Hall and Gjørvik played host to the World Women's Handball Championship in 1999[50]," Ref should be after the punctuation mark. Afro (Talk) 12:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 41–50 have an author and publisher which is the same, so it seems unnecessary to duplicate the information (they are all from the official sites of the mentioned organizations). Otherwise fixed. Arsenikk (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll Support my issues were only minor and they seem to of been fixed. Afro (Talk) 15:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
The last sentence of the lead is a bit like a run-on for my tastes. Could the walking distance from train stations be made into a small sentence of its own?Post-Olympic use: Double word in "Only part of the athlete accomodation was was built for permanent use".Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for the comments. Both have been fix. Arsenikk (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
- Support after my silly gaffe was pointed out. Courcelles 13:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my issues all resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have Nergaal and Afkatk been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why there isn't a section on the village yet. Nergaal (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Another great list! :p --TIAYN (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [7].
- Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidental good timing with the Athletics' manager list below! So close to finishing this topic. One question for the reviewers: How much (if at all) should I add a mention of Moneyball to this article? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| *Comment: "21 players came" Don't start a sentence with a numeral. Only thing I saw. Courcelles 02:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support As should not be surprising, with 29 of 31 lists written, the formula is pretty well down. Courcelles 03:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments:
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
Support all my minor issues dealt with with alacrity, most appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Comma would be nice after "They also drafted Ariel Prieto in 1995"."Two Athletics' first-round picks have won championships with the franchise." Nope. That number is at least three. Walt Weiss was on the A's 1989 team, and his Baseball-Reference page clearly indicates that he played in the World Series against the Giants.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed! Good catch, I swear I scan through every pick-page for players drafted before a given WS win for a franchise, I must've missed him. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [8].
- Nominator(s): TCO (talk), NYMFan69-86 (talk)
State reptiles are frequent subjects for young schoolchildren and provide an easy, friendly way to get into studying biology. But the prompt for doing this article was actually the incomprehension of non-Americans when hearing about state reptiles in FAC for Painted turtle. I hope this article explains what the heck a state reptile is and just shows some fun, quirky Americana.
We have gotten a little help from heavies in the list world on formatting, but appreciate your continued kind instruction and help to make this thing front page material. This is our first visit to FLC, but we are already eying another "prize": Subspecies of Galápagos tortoise.
Note: There is a potential usage problem with the Alabama red-bellied turtle image. Have filed an FFD to try to resolve that and send out emails asking for a donation. Fixed. Got permission for the original image. Uploading OTRS and proper copyright holder to Commons.
TCO (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title should be List of U.S. state reptiles consistent with all other state symbol lists and most FLs in general; WP:article titles generally should not be plural.Reywas92Talk 13:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Returned to U.S. state reptiles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please change ours back as well? I can see a lot of different sides to this and hope I don't get an object over something as silly as a name war. But since different people feel differently, rather do what makes the article writers happy. I don't like "List of" unless clearly needed since it makes the title longer, there is no separate article to differentiate from (and note that we never say "Articl of"!), the content to me includes a list as well as exploration of the topic, other sites on the web cover this topic without "List of" type titles. Keep the plural as well. This is different from horse (concept) being singular. We are talking about a set small class in number. It's the same as "Single-term presidents of the United States". You can leave that plural as it describes a specific group. Also as far as consistency, only one other state symbol list has been an FL (dog breeds) and it was without List of.TCO (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'List of' name is not good for several reasons, it's overly long, it's not a list and it's not a list of U.S state reptiles. U.S. state dog breeds was changed to drop the list of after discussion and passed as a featured list with that naming. The above poster(User:Reywas92) moved that article recently(since it passed as FL), with a 'minor' edit. Marking the move as 'minor' edit hides it from watch lists - from those who discussed it as the FL review - as such the action is distruptive. The name of an article is a rather major change. I moved U.S. state dog breeds back to the agreed name. U.S. state reptiles should also be used. It's okay being consistant, but not consistantly incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, thanks Reywas92!TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - references should be after the punctuation marks in the notes. Is an image needed in biology? also on this point there might be too many pictures in the top half of the article, I understand the table but the pictures in history and biology make the article seem flooded with images, it might be a good idea to remove one of the images and reduce the size of the rest. The Lead may not adequately summarize the article may be a good idea to expand upon it.Afro (Talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Fixed the punctuation
- Reduced size of all three images.
- I moving the biology image to the lead. Think number of images in text is needed for some break from all my numerical analytics...and content has grown a little again.
- Lead expanded.TCO (talk) 05:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will have limited ability to respond to further comments until Tuesday (on travel).TCO (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments on a quick run
Just a real quick glance, I'll need to do a more thorough review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref.(s) or Ref(s)? I thought Ref. was an abbreviation for Reference, so should get a period, no? I would spell it out if it didn't screw up my column. Not arguing, just wondering. TCO (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Started a page for state bats (it was a redlink for our article).TCO (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have a few comments:
- Lede:
- "As with other state symbols, states show their pride via the "Whereases" of designating statutes. " I think I know what you mean here. Thousands wouldn't. I would say "legislatures" rather than Whereases.
- Cut.TCO (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Schoolchildren often start the campaigns to name state reptiles". I'd strike the "the".
- Done.
- " Six states chose species named after the state.". Lose the second state. Perhaps "named after it"
- Done.
- Government aspects
- Perhaps "governmental aspects"?
- Done.
- Does the flowery language bit need citation? Also, usually joint resolutions have numbers, or else put a date of passage.
- That was my generalization in the sneaky guise of a topic sentence. I think it's justified, but if it made you pause, will make others. Cut comment and reader can draw his own inferences. For the JRS, I put the number back (we had it before, but I had cut it thinking the reference sufficed).
- On the "resolution", I'd add that it does not require the governor's signature
- Done.
- West Virginia: You need the name of the town. Maybe it is the same as the school, but that isn't obvious.
- I added it in brackets with a link. Interesting article actually. I could also do a note or even just use ellipses to eliminate the town digression.
- "While ..." rephrase so as not to use word "While".
- Cut.
- Virginia and other states: You should provide pipes to the article on the individual houses of the legislature, for example Virginia House of Delegates.
- I piped PA houses. For VA, had already rewritten to cut some of the discussion of the failure in General Assembly (was very similar story to PA just opposite houses and my cute little comments about NC rivalry give enough VA copy already. I was tempted to try to sneak in the Virginia Republicans for Reptiles but its not an RS and I already have enough cute little finds.
- " Virginia has had two unsuccessful legislative attempts to elevate the eastern box turtle." Perhaps reverse it "Proponents of the eastern box turtle have seen two attempts to elevate it in Virginia fail."
- Done.
- "Official state reptiles are used for education." Perhaps "Designation of state reptiles is used in the education process". And perhaps if you can justify it, add "and to interest children in state geography and/or politics", only if a ref says that. Frankly, I'd rewrite this section, saying something like "State officials, most often the secretary of state, use webpages and coloring books to reach out to children. In Missouri, the incumbent, Robin Carnahan, uses the coloring book to great future voters."
- It's more than just the designation. They use them for all kinds of crap. Basic geography. Logic games. Report writing. I don't remember doing any of that stuff when I was in school, but just Google it. It's all the rage. Heck, that makes me feel good that we have a decent page with all the wikilinks to our articles for teachers and kids to look stuff up. We're better than Netstate or the like, although it's good to know there is alternate content out there too. I rewrote the section a little, and backed up the comment about lesson plans with some refs, but it may still not be there. Please feel free to rewrite if you want, cut Robin's quote, etc. I don't like starting a section with a nominalization though ("designation").
- TCU: That story is long enough you should probably name the guy. And watch your word choice when you are casting around to avoid a repetition!
- Added and (WTF) red-linked him. I'm not sure what boner I pulled, but thanks I guess you caught one.
- Biology
- "wide-ranged" Surely "wide-ranging"?
- I mean the species's range covers a lot of the USA. The individual animals don't really travel far (nothing like a wolf or the like). They are slow and have little legs. Although they move if a water body dries up and sometimes in search of food or the males for females or females to nest (but a couple miles or so). But I cut the whole term.
That's it. A nice effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. I agree with all your comments and will fix. Also, saw you put in several upgrades. TCO (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it takes less effort to fix something in an article than to point it out to the nominator, I would rather just fix it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Please have another look. And feel free to mess with the Use section and make it better please.TCO (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it takes less effort to fix something in an article than to point it out to the nominator, I would rather just fix it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Seems to meet the FL criteria. There is a prose glitch now and then, it wouldn't hurt to have someone outside read it over for a final check. I'd add a year to the state resolution you cite in the box.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added year to Vermont ref and quotebox.TCO (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A few small points to address:
- The eastern box turtle image is the only one with head to the right. It would be nicer flipped.
- facing left now.TCO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of these are protected or endangered, it'd be nice to identify them in the table.
- I have added the content.TCO|TCO]] (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In citations:
- The lede is not exempt from wp:V. It should have supporting citations.
- If this is relating to your comments on summary form ledes ([9], I disagree with you on what is best for the article. General practice and even FA preference is not to have duplicated reference marks for executive summary style leads (provided content is backed up elsewhere in article). This is also how I write content off-wiki. While I respect your right to argue your view in the policy discussions, would ask that you give my article an oppose or support without respect to this issue. I find discussions going back to at least 2006 on this topic, one with Malleus against the notes and SV for them.
- Thank you for drawing my attention to the open-ended state of that discussion, I thought it was resolved. It won't impact my position re this article. Still, I would urge caution. Summary style or executive style ledes that omit explicit citations are vulnerable to wp:SYNTH creeping in. Thus it is especially important to check that each assertion in the lede is also seen elsewhere in the article and cited there. Have you done that?00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. It's all summary content, not intro. At one time there was intro content, but when that existed, it HAD cites. And when it moved to body, the cites went with it.TCO (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 59, 67 should follow the form of the other cites to that book (Shearer 1994)
- Done.TCO (talk) 21:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that NSTATE LLC owns Netstate.com - while convenient it is not clear to me whether it's [stable and wp:RS. In any case, I'd suggest adding archiveurl and archivedate to the {{cite web}} instances to back up the "as of" statements. The internet archive seems to have content for that site, though of course it embargoes it for a few months.
- Archived.TCO (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice change of pace. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, 'dog. Will get to these later tonight (too nice a day for indoors now) and either make the change or note the comment.TCO (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support promotion. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have adressed all your comments, now. TCO (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dianna's comments
* I had a bunch of copy edits to suggest but just did them myself. Not sure what this is (possibly a typo?): Gopherus (gopher tortoises). Note the last two letters are italicised; I am not sure what is intended here.
- I redid this sentence, also included a link to Gopherus.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went back to unitalicized gopher tortoises. (the last two letters was a remnant of something previous, NA now) Am concerned to start hyperlinking in there as it quickly becomes all blue.TCO (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Shearer and Shearer just appear out of the blue. Please add a phrase telling us something about who they are or what publication you are talking about.
- "In their almanac"
*Book titles need to be capitalised.
- The Shearer book citations under "Citations?" A few of them need to be condensed also...I'm on it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Book titles need to be capitalised per Chicago and our own MoS but not all of our articles do that; even some of the feature articles do not do it. Chicago also calls for web page titles and article titles to be capitalised headline style but right now no one seems to be enforcing it. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever we do, need to stack hands and be consistent. I was taught last FA, to go sentence case. There are also web page and article titles to consider. I know the web page titles are not consistent now.TCO (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon further inspection, they didn't need to be condensed. I did fix the capitalization on two though (reference numbers 54 and 67), were these the only two?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*State birds needs disambiguation.
- Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*http://myfwc.com/newsroom/08/statewide/News_08_X_SeaTurtleSymbol.htm is a dead link. It is listed in two different ways, at Cite #11 and #51. --Diannaa (Talk) 23:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr. :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the saltwater reptile itself (not the quote), I changed to ref to be to the statute itself (not a press release). I also added enough content (bill number and year) so that even if web location goes back, the cite itself has validity (I think this is how to handle this issue).TCO (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the content back in (clarified a little the placement and purpose) and added Sunny's "save". Still need a little more Sunny help as it is not "taking" for the webcite.TCO (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.nbbd.com/godo/cns/seaturtles/floridasymbol.html this time I've archive it here. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame to lose that content. It was there only a couple of weeks ago. Maybe you can get it back? Regardless, I support promotion of the article. --Diannaa (Talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Darnit. It was there. I will reference the bill itself as far as the animal naming (that should be stable). In terms of that quote, that has to go (FWC only maintains last 2 years of press releases). Will look for another state to make this point (what the students do). Grr. :( Makes me wonder how the heck we should cite things in general (never site press releases, archive stuff (and does it really stay archived)?TCO (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"and discuss how widespread the animal is in the state or how needing of preservation." Feels like "it is" is begging to be put at the end.
The Justification section is pretty much entirely a bunck of quotes. Is there anything else that can be done with it, like using a bit of paraphrasing? It seems a little plain and ordinary for a piece of featured content. There are several other quotes in the next couple sections, come to think of it. Seven quotes in eight (not large) paragraphs is a lot.
- Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I'm not a fan of the bolding that's been inserted. It doesn't strike me as necessary to have it, and I don't think the MoS supports it.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants, I just cut two quotes (WV school and Robin Carnahan). For the Justification section, I need the quotes, it's the only way to convey the info without me starting to opine (RSes don't step back and analyze it well). However, I formatted it into bullets (since it's choppy anyhow) and also moved it down a section, so people get some normal prose first. It's improved, now.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation: Why is the bracketed town name in quotation marks? This is also in note 12.
- I cut that sentence for other reasons. Quotes are used when referring to an article as document (rather than to the concept itself and happening to wikilink). Same as referring to a story or a song.TCO (talk)
- Anyhow, I got that whole long sentence with the WV quote.TCO (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cut that sentence for other reasons. Quotes are used when referring to an article as document (rather than to the concept itself and happening to wikilink). Same as referring to a story or a song.TCO (talk)
Geography: "From the twenty-four of the contiguous states roughly south of the Mason-Dixon line. only five lacked a state reptile." En dash needed for the hyphen in "Mason-Dixon link", and "lacked" should be "lack" (this is meant to be in present terms, correct?).
- Fixed tense. Added en-dash (had to pipe the article, our article uses the hyphen).TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.collegefootballhistory.com (reference 27) a reliable source? It's also missing a publisher from the citation.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the college's official athletics website. That's fine in terms of reliability, although I'm not sure CBSSports.com should be considered the true publisher since it's a different website. Perhaps add info on the college to the cite? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bad ref, agreed. I have found, I think the source, which is CBSSports.com. But it's part of a service they have where they run a bunch of sales outlets and general info and tickets and such. But it is run by a news outlet. Here's the link (http://www.umterps.com/trads/md-m-fb-mas.html) which if you click on about us, takes you to (http://collegenetwork.cbssports.com/school-bio/cbsc-about.html). I'd like to link here as this story is the more engaging version. But let me know if it passes muster. If not, I can go to this link (http://www.umd.edu/testudo.html) which is from the school itself. I just have to cut some of the engaging comments about the enemy animal mascots and the like in my text.TCO (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I had the "roughly" caveat in text. But I've expanded on it via a note. Cool now? I used states that actually have state reptiles as I think that is more meaningful in this article, than discussing the geography in terms of NJ and DE (a northern and southern state, each with a little extension across the line), but neither of which have a state reptile.TCO (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, you might want to be a little more specific about "south of the Mason-Dixon line" Keep in mind that New Jersey lies in part south of the Line.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just butting in, I don't think that's an RS, it looks more like a link farm to me. Suggest checking the individual schools' actual web sites (not the links from that page).--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Giants. Will either fix or respond. TCO (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.
- I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, man. I'm going to leave as is. There is the url and then the publisher indicatin the commercial entity behind the content. I think this is actually more conservative to list it as this .com provider, than asserting it is the university when it is not.TCO (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. In that case, why not include both in the reference? That way, we're giving CBS Sports proper credit while not confusing the reader into thinking that they're about to go on the actual CBS Sports site (not just a site run by them). One of the entities could be the work and the other the publisher. Just a thought. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. The website is run by CBSSports. They have some sort of business relationship to act as a storefront or the like, but I think this is more honest, to show them as the publisher (it's not UMD.edu, but a .com domain and when you follow the about us, find that this CBSSports entity (owned by CBS) is running the service.
- 2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
- The bolding is now gone and I struck out the related comments above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Here is the guidance on bulleted lists. This is also, not just me finding some obscure MOS, but how I would write off-wiki. That said, if it reeeeely bugs you, I give permission for you to change it to drop the bolds. I do think bulleting helps as the quotes are choppy anyhow, so would keep that. Think it deals with your issue of finding it hard to read a bunch of quotes in a row and sort of formalizes them. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists).
- 3. How about an up or down thumb? We've been here since the 23rd. This is the content I can bring to users. TCO (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Comments
- Been through and checked all the images, all seems to be ok and licensing is in order. However a few loose ends could do with tidying up to ensure everything is covered.
- In regards to the college image File:Another stat reptile collage.jpg, it has black borders on its right and bottom sides which need to be continued all the way around or removed, either way to tidy up this image that heads the article (I don't mind doing this just decide whether you want the borders in or out).
- Also all images contributing to the college have been linked too and it's good practice to link all images used back to the college. 1 of the 4 images do this but File:Garter snake close up northern ontario canada mirror image.jpg, File:Gopherus polyphemus Tomfriedel.jpg and File:Collared Lizard 1.jpg should do also.
- The license of File:Alabama red-bellied turtle US FWS cropped.jpg needs to be looked at, as its currently not displaying correctly.
Apart from those few things, all seems good to me, can't seem to find anything of concern and I believe it would make a worthy addition to FL once everything is sorted. If I had to nitpick, there is one tiny thing, nothing major but there is one red link Addison Clark Jr.. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please fix the image issues and insert in article. I will probably live with the redlink. The FA crew are OK with those. I started a list on state bats, so that should keep TRM and the listers happy. For AC, I would really need an article on his dad first. Actually, I will probably get around to it...the redlink motivates me. TCO (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed. Regards, Fallschirmjäger ✉ 18:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The red link in itself is not a problem. If half the list was red links it would be, but one red link in an article filled with blue isn't a failure of any criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, FS! P.s. I did start a page on AC Sr., who was more notable than AC Jr. No immediate intentions to start an article on AC Jr. Don't care if we leave the redlink or eliminate it. (Don't think the FA delegates care either.) TCO (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look over the page, and I haven't noticed any scientific mistakes. A few bits in the Conservation section need citations, but that should be pretty straightforward, and I've tagged those. Mokele (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review. cites added.TCO (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Mokele. :-)
- Now that's taken care of, I Support this page as a featured list. Mokele (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the IUCN ratings, I had a hard time understanding this sentence: "There, the loggerhead sea turtle is only considered threatened." What is "there" referring to? bibliomaniac15 22:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to clarify.TCO (talk) 22:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This article has seriously raised the bar on research, image presentation and what can be written in a Featured List of a state symbol. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per SunCreator. Meets all criteria comfortably, written to a high standard of a neutral tone. Lead section introduces the subject consistently and is enticing. Signifcantly well researched and supported, content is comprehensive. Attractive visual appeal and well presented. Certainly a worthy addition to FL in my books. Fallschirmjäger ✉ 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I am intrigued that there's been no discussion on the underrepresentation of snakes, but if it isn't in sources it ain't there. Nice list. I did a bit of a copyedit. Nothing else jumps out at me as needing improving. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources don't talk about it, but they do talk about the turtle fascination. Kids just love them, want to have them as pets, etc. Was doing some research on commercial raising of turtles, and there was the comment "give a kid a choice between a turtle and a lizard, and the turtle will win every time". And I think snake would be the same. Turtles would be even more popular if the USA allowed hatchling pets (forbidden since 1975 for public health reasons). But still, kids dig them.
- On the snakes, rattlesnakes are an American sort of icon and were even a Revolutionary War symbol ("Don't tread on me") and two states do use a form of rattlesnake. None of the sources said anything about current fear/hatred of snakes (look at Harry Potter, darned parseltongue), but I'm sure we could speculate that there are some people not too crazy about snakes, and there is the Biblical archetype. But other than Shearer and one overall article, there is not much at the overview level, anyway. This article was built up mostly from the state by state examples.
- The animal that NYM and I think is really missing is the gila monster.TCO (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is one thing - I'd link species the first mention they appear in the body of the text. Painted turtle is linked yet most others aren't. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had them linked for a while, but de-linked because Biology was hard to read with all the blue, along with how dry that section is anyhow. There was also the issue that there is a table of links at the bottom. But let's try it out. There's a lot more text now ahead of Bio mentioning species so maybe it works now.TCO (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well done. Good job. --Kumioko (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moral Support - as I was peripherally involved in some of the technical aspects of the article. I can say that in my humble opinion, the article meets all the needs of accessibility (apart from the lack of a table caption - but I wouldn't insist on one where the table immediately follows a section header). The article is also very usable, particularly the ability to sort the table in meaningful ways. I'm pleased to say that the visual appeal does not seem (to my eyes) to be in any way compromised by the adaptations made to meet WP:ACCESS, and I would be delighted if the consensus here was that this is one of Wikipedia's best works. Well done. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sort? The article looks fascinating, and I'll be back after a proper read, but Rex's remark about the sortable table kind of hit me in the eye. Are idjits like me supposed to figger out for themselves how to sort it? Or are there some instructions hidden somewhere, that I don't see? Or is it so obvious everybody knows except me? Please add instructions for sorting, preferably not just in edit mode (remember the idjits).) Bishonen | talk 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Never mind, I found the little clickers. Maybe the other idjits will, too. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You must be feeling a little D-fish like. Well...at least the reptiles are a step towards evolution into man. ;) (Just kidding, don't bite me Hammer.) Umm...if you know a concise way to solve this problem, just insert it in the article.TCO (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh.. bigger clickers? Half a foot or so? Bishonen | talk 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Eight inches work?TCO (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh.. bigger clickers? Half a foot or so? Bishonen | talk 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You must be feeling a little D-fish like. Well...at least the reptiles are a step towards evolution into man. ;) (Just kidding, don't bite me Hammer.) Umm...if you know a concise way to solve this problem, just insert it in the article.TCO (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind, I found the little clickers. Maybe the other idjits will, too. Bishonen | talk 00:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [10].
- Nominator(s): Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this list meets the FL Criteria. This is my first major expansion of an article and I have formatted it to make it similar to the other FL Grammy Lists made predominantly by User:Another Believer.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Glad to see other contributors taking stabs at Grammy lists! This should certainly help to speed up the process with getting all categories up to good/FL status. I see no problems with references, ref formatting, or disambig links.
See my recent edit regarding sorting. Sorting capability needs to be incorporated into the entire "Performing artists" and "Work" columns.
- I will let other reviewers determine if having multiple flags of the same country within the same cell (for example, four American flags for Christina Aguilera, Mya, Lil Kim and Pink) is necessary, and if country flags are preferred in general.
- Waiting for consensus --Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Each category is different based on its history, but I feel like this lead is a little short. There may not be much to expand, but I would make sure there are no sources indicating why the category was started.
- Can't find anything, but will keep looking.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that at least one more image could be added to the right-hand column, if possible. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discussed Below Done--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any major gripes about the list, but I will wait for other reviewers to examine the list before offering support. Keep up the great work! --Another Believer (Talk) 02:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll start working on it ASAP =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the promotion of this list, regardless of whether or not the paragraph I added about Natalie and Nat King Cole and the five artists with more than one nomination within the same year is kept. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorting looks good. Don't add additional images if the column starts running into the sections below--there is room for another pictures on my screen, but I realize we don't all see the same display. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Reviewers, would it be worth including this link in the external links section? For some Grammy lists I added official YouTube links to award-winning music videos, but I was never sure if adding a link to tagged videos on the Grammy site was helpful/appropriate or not. Feedback would be appreciated for this list and others. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I went ahead and removed duplicate flags within the same cell. In my opinion, only one American flag is required if both performing artists are American. This can be discussed and reverted if consensus prefers multiple flags of the same country within the same cell. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Chieftains needs to use {{sortname}}
-
- Actually, based on what AnotherBeliever said, I don't think that groups should be sorted. Is that ok or would you like me to keep?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When things are sorted alphabetically, words like 'the' and 'a' are ignored. So please adjust it. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a better image of Santana (or of another artist to replace it)
- Not sure how relevant the Mainstream Top 40 (Pop Songs) link is, seeing as the Grammys are awarded "without regard to album sales or chart position."
- I would like some other opinions with regards to whether or not to redlink the unlinked songs.
- Or to link them to the album the track appears on? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K, we will see with the discussion--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with Another Believer; if the songs don't have articles, a link to its album appearance instead would be better (the reader wants to know more about the song, and the album's entry seems to be very informative in a few cases; better than a red link, I surmise).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kk will do!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Linking the award-winning songs is more important than linking the nominated songs. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I linked all of the non-linked songs to their suitable albums..yet some don't have album or articles to link to so I couldn't do some--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I would prefer that you link directly to all winning songs, with either redlinks or redirects. Do not redlink nominated songs, though. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- K I will leave it as it is for now, since so far most want it linked to the album--Blackjacks101 (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some songs are not really Pop music, but I support anyway (maybe Grammy meant popular music, what is not the same as Pop music).-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 17:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added a fact about Natalie Cole and Nat King Cole's win for "When I Fall in Love", as I thought this was a notable relationship and fact about a remake of one of his "signature hits". If reviewers feel this is not notable enough for inclusion in the lead, feel free to revert. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also added a section to the lead about five artists that have received more than one nomination within the same year. Again, feel free to revert if deemed non-notable, though I do feel that this inclusion gives the lead a bit more bulk. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much =D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
That's all I see. Images are good, the table looks good. Amazing work. Novice7 (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – looks good. Good job. Novice7 (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very well written. Everything is sourced. I think nothing more is needed to pass it. Jivesh • Talk2Me 15:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for the support!--Blackjacks101 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Looks really nice! I see no issues. Great job! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you!--Blackjacks101 (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 Giants2008 03:24, 19 March 2011 [11].
- Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because... I saw the endless work by Another Believer on Grammy Awards, so I thought I'd better pitch in on at least one list. Another Believer's deserves a lot of credit here as his previous work made it easy to find references. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for your kind words. I am happy to see others contributing to the Grammy "project" as well. I will certainly give this list my stamp of approval. Even without my minor contributions, this list was highly consistent with other Grammy-related lists that have been promoted to FL status. I have not done research myself about the award, so I am not sure if there are other facts, controversies, etc. worth noting. Based solely on formatting, consistency with similar lists, media, and sources I will support the promotion of this list assuming other reviewers' concerns are addressed. Well done, Adabow. Keep up the great work and feel free to contribute to additional Grammy lists! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comments: No disambig links or problematic external links. Also, I will let other reviewers decide this, but I can see how some people might find multiple flag icons of the same country in the same cell redundant. Would just one American flag work if both artists are American? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some issue with the alt text for Kanye West. Jujutacular talk 21:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. While correcting a spelling error, I added an additional "|" to correct the alt text. (Not to step on your toes, Adabow, just did it while I was making another edit!) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all! I'm not doing this for credit, but to improve the encyclopaedia. So thanks. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per MOS:FLAG, I'm not really sure if it's appropriate to list the flag icon next to the country name. I'm sort of on the fence about this one because it's a good visual identifier, but it risks overpowering the artist. For example, Rihanna lives and works in the United States, but with the gigantic Barbados flag, it might lead people to make them think she records in Barbados. Do other editors have opinions on this? Nomader (Talk) 23:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just re-used the format used in other FLs such as Grammy Award for Best Rock Album. I would have no objection to removing flags, but it would have to be done on all Grammy lists. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the flags look great. MOS:FLAG instructs not to use flags in article introductions or infoboxes--this table is neither. Also, under the section "Biographical use" MOS states: "If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards." Granted, this is in the case of country representation in sports. Still, I don't feel flag use in these Grammy lists is in violation of NPOV. For the sake of consistency, I would argue to keep the flags (see any Grammy-related FL). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that flags look great too, but they make the user instantly think about the nationality of the artist instead of who the singer is, and in many cases, doesn't accurately reflect their current citizenship. I think the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" actually makes specific mention of putting nationality flags next to artists; the example uses Paul McCartney and mentions that putting a flagicon next to his name emphasizes his Englishness over other qualities. I'd prefer it if there was a way we could do the list without the flags, but again, I'm not dead set against it by any means. It's no big deal– if no other editors feel the way I do about it, then I might as well support as I see no other outstanding issues with the list. I'll give it a few days though and maybe give the list another thorough review before I do so. Nomader (Talk) 03:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't put up much of a fight if consensus shows a preference for removing the flags. However, in my opinion, the flags do not make the list unclear, ambiguous or controversial (see the "Clarity" section), and therefore do not violate NPOV. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think the flags must be removed from this and all other Grammy lists. I don't like the appearance, it increases page-load time, doesn't particular add much to the article besides unnecessarily emphasising the performer's nationality. Also dislike the practice of wikilinking the countries.—indopug (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the flags, but I feel it would be regressive to unlink countries. WP:BTW. If consensus changes I am happy to revert (re-add the flags). Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how does linking to United States a bunch of times help? Everybody already knows what is.—indopug (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the flags, but I feel it would be regressive to unlink countries. WP:BTW. If consensus changes I am happy to revert (re-add the flags). Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also think the flags must be removed from this and all other Grammy lists. I don't like the appearance, it increases page-load time, doesn't particular add much to the article besides unnecessarily emphasising the performer's nationality. Also dislike the practice of wikilinking the countries.—indopug (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't put up much of a fight if consensus shows a preference for removing the flags. However, in my opinion, the flags do not make the list unclear, ambiguous or controversial (see the "Clarity" section), and therefore do not violate NPOV. --Another Believer (Talk) 05:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think that flags look great too, but they make the user instantly think about the nationality of the artist instead of who the singer is, and in many cases, doesn't accurately reflect their current citizenship. I think the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" actually makes specific mention of putting nationality flags next to artists; the example uses Paul McCartney and mentions that putting a flagicon next to his name emphasizes his Englishness over other qualities. I'd prefer it if there was a way we could do the list without the flags, but again, I'm not dead set against it by any means. It's no big deal– if no other editors feel the way I do about it, then I might as well support as I see no other outstanding issues with the list. I'll give it a few days though and maybe give the list another thorough review before I do so. Nomader (Talk) 03:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the flags look great. MOS:FLAG instructs not to use flags in article introductions or infoboxes--this table is neither. Also, under the section "Biographical use" MOS states: "If a French player is awarded a medal for playing in a German team, the German flag would be used in a table of awards." Granted, this is in the case of country representation in sports. Still, I don't feel flag use in these Grammy lists is in violation of NPOV. For the sake of consistency, I would argue to keep the flags (see any Grammy-related FL). --Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well I liked the prior version with the flags; now it looks a little bit odd for me. Because this list a sortable, I see no problems to link so much.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the better question is whether or not the Grammys put this much emphasis on nationality when they give out the awards... if they do, the nationality is sensationally important, but as is apparent in this list, the nationality could just be mentioned in the lead especially when the US dominates so strongly for an award. It's not the nationality that counts, but the artist themselves. I'm worried that the flags overshadow who the artists are. Nomader (Talk) 09:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We could do away with the column altogether? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is displaying nationalities more appropriate for some lists than others? Keep in mind that we are discussing a list with mostly American artists--some lists are dominated by artists from other nations or by artists from a variety of nations. Including nationality information provides additional detail to the reader by illustrating where Grammy-winning artists are from. In the greater picture, readers can compare one list to another to see how some music categories are more prominent in different parts of the world. --Another Believer (Talk) 18:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Note to reviewers: Consensus seems to be in favour of keeping the flags. If you have an issue with this I suggest you post at WT:MOSICON. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I have no objection. Nomader (Talk) 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad the flags are back! Does anyone else have thoughts on my "additional" comment above regarding multiple uses of the same flag within a cell? --Another Believer (Talk) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I have no objection. Nomader (Talk) 14:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Per Another Believer's initial comments. Candyo32 13:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have looked through it and it meets FL criteria--Blackjacks101 (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
Courcelles 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – looks great. Good job Adabow. Novice7 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [12].
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the format of existing FL List of Montserrat national football team results, I hope that this historical list meets the requirements. All the best everyone :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question, any reason for the cut-off at 1899? Are you planning (suggesting?) a 1900 to 1949 list, a 1950 to 1999 list, a 2000 onwards list or something else? I only asked because I'm sure someone else will, in due course...! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Scotland national football team results, many of these lists already exist, though none until now have graced FL's door. Courcelles 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that afterwards. Seems a little odd on the current split (for me) I suppose. The next 1900-1919 list has just 36 games in and stops in 1914 because of the First World War. Consider the fact we have some Medal of Honor lists or Knights Cross lists (or Prem League hat-tricks...!) with well over 100 entries. I guess it's fine, I just wondered if we really needed so many lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite happy/prepared to merge this one with the 1900-1919 list if it's deemed necessary. That would give a list with just over 100 entries, which seems to be about as many as we'd want to have on one list, and encompass all pre-WW1 matches, which seems a natural split. To clarify, I didn't create any of these articles, so I can't say on what basis the split was originally worked out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, I understand. Let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite happy/prepared to merge this one with the 1900-1919 list if it's deemed necessary. That would give a list with just over 100 entries, which seems to be about as many as we'd want to have on one list, and encompass all pre-WW1 matches, which seems a natural split. To clarify, I didn't create any of these articles, so I can't say on what basis the split was originally worked out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found that afterwards. Seems a little odd on the current split (for me) I suppose. The next 1900-1919 list has just 36 games in and stops in 1914 because of the First World War. Consider the fact we have some Medal of Honor lists or Knights Cross lists (or Prem League hat-tricks...!) with well over 100 entries. I guess it's fine, I just wondered if we really needed so many lists... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- much better now that it is merged
lead should talk about some of the huge attendances (five games had over 100k spectators!)- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since essentially most of these games were played in the British championship, there should be a table with the statistics on the placing Scotland got in these editions (how many times it finished 1st, 1-2, 2nd, 1-3, 2-3, 4th, etc.- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think the article should clearly point out that Scotland was the best rated team then (officially or not, it WAS)
- My point, though, is that at the time Scotland was not rated the best team in the world, because the ratings did not exist and such things simply were not discussed back then. Only well over 100 years later did someone decide that they had been the best rated team in this era. I'll see what other people think, but personally I don't believe it belongs in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sod it, I'll put it in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My point, though, is that at the time Scotland was not rated the best team in the world, because the ratings did not exist and such things simply were not discussed back then. Only well over 100 years later did someone decide that they had been the best rated team in this era. I'll see what other people think, but personally I don't believe it belongs in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am leaning towards support. Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*A couple of things:
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
- Support – Read through the list and spotted no problems. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I made one small fix as I read, but this is in good shape. Courcelles 12:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [14].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a project that was a little different last week, and I decided to take a look at WP:FFL to see if I could do anything about a list listed there. Well, this is the result, originally a 2007 promotion and 2009 demotion due largely to referencing and colour usage, among other things. All comments awaited with anticipation. Courcelles 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if one of the directors wants to move things around, the 2007 nomination is at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/New England Patriots seasons/archive1. Courcelles 16:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from WFC |
|---|
*Shameless opportunism I will review this, seasons lists are a somewhat of an interest of mine. But while I'm here, do you have any idea where I could track down more information on this guy's background in American football? —WFC— 16:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFC
Overall this looks decent. I'll be back with more over the next day or so. —WFC— 16:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from WFC
—WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Notable sources (such as the Toronto Star) should be linked on the first occurance. —WFC— 08:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a stylistic thing, and I absolutely can't stand turning the references section into a sea of largely useless bluelinks. Courcelles 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left this uncapped because I don't consider it resolved as such, but I conceed that it probably is personal preference, so won't let it affect my support. —WFC— 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a stylistic thing, and I absolutely can't stand turning the references section into a sea of largely useless bluelinks. Courcelles 18:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a couple of spot checks on the references tomorrow, and provided there are no problems there I'll be supporting. Thanks for the speedy responses. —WFC— 18:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Spot checking didn't throw up any concerns. All other (substantive) points resolved. —WFC— 13:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be appropriate to have a statistics section with how far they got at the end of the season. Nergaal (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would be very difficult to do, considering terms like "Divisional Playoffs" have, at times, been either the semi-finals or quarter-finals, the possibility of first-round byes, the aberration of 1982, and the lack of RS's that would help reduce this exercise from being OR. I've added some info about how many times they've reached the playoffs in total, and played in and won/lost a conference championship after the merge (A non-existent term before it), but the number of different playoff schemes used since 1970 is rather beyond this article (National Football League playoffs doesn't really do a great job of explaining the changes in terminology in places). Courcelles 03:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support all the points in my "exhaustive commentary" (!!) have been resolved... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport – Did most of my reviewing before the FLC on the article's talk page.Noticed one more thing while re-reviewing: Note a says "The Season column links to an article about each season in the league." The list doesn't deal with just one league, since the Patriots have been in the AFL and NFL. The sentence could use some adjusting to reflect that.Otherwise, everything looks good. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the note, thanks for both of your reviews. Courcelles 02:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [16].
- Nominator(s): Wizardman 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For part 27 of a 31-part series, we have the Baltimore Orioles first-round draft picks. The baseball project is almost done bothering you FLC regulars (with this topic, mwahaha). Anyway, everything checks out, and it looks the same as the other lists, so I don't expect any major problems.
For this list's fun fact, the team actually won the World Series three times in draft years, and you can see by high numbers when the team was an MLB power, and when they started their downward trend. As you can tell, they've been in the basement the past few years. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
Courcelles 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 01:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comment - I think this is good work, but I think one statement is incorrect: "Bobby Grich (1967), who was with the franchise when they won the World Series in 1970, is the only pick to win a championship with the team." Didn't Rich Dauer win a championship with the 1983 Orioles? If so, I think the list needs to acknowledge that as well, similar to the color for Grich. Rlendog (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport –In "One pick, Gregg Olson (1988) has won the MLB Rookie of the Year award", there should be a comma after the year, and I wonder if "award" should be capitalized. It is in our article on the subject.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [17].
- Nominator(s): PresN 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back into the breach with the 12th of 14 lists. The written works, magazines, editors, movies, and professional artists are done, so we now come to the Best Fan Artist award. Like the Professional Artist award, there's no mention of what works the artists in question worked on in the eligibility year; the award is simply noted as going to such-and-such. This list is basically identical to the Professional Artist list, but shorter and with different names. I've incorporated suggestions and changes from previous nominations into this list, as usual. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Weak support I have a few personal picks, but there are no major problems. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check- One dab link and no dead links in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. --PresN 21:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nothing wrong here, standard stuff by now. Courcelles 13:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support follows the formula, meets the criteria, nothing we can moan about! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"though the 1954 Retro Hugos received insufficient nominations for the Fan Artist Hugo for make the ballot." Second "for" → "to". Note that this occurs in the lead and body.Winners and nominees: "Entries with a blue background and an asterisk next to the editor's name have won the award". Should "editor" be "artist" to match the award?Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. --PresN 03:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [18].
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 19:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another international cricket centuries list: David Gower was one of England's most elegant batsmen. The list is based upon previous featured lists such as the recently promoted List of international cricket centuries by Jacques Kallis. Harrias talk 19:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I see no serious problems. Ruslik_Zero 16:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Courcelles 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments
|
- Support Happy now. Courcelles 18:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support I got a bit touchy about some possible POV stuff, but Harrias worked well to shut me up! Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The quote in the first sentence could use a cite at the end of that sentence. I'm against over-citation in general, but a quote is something I'd expect to see referenced ASAP.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I resolved this as you commented on it by removing the quote! Harrias talk 10:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Dabomb87 22:25, 14 March 2011 [19].
- Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing another governor's list up for nomination. Last governor's list to pass FL was Idaho and Washington is patterned after Idaho. Photos are included as Washington has similar copyright laws to that of the federal government. Dates given in the territorial governor section are the dates that I could find. There is a dearth of western Washington newspapers that have been digitized between 1870–1890. However, from the FAQ on the Washington State Library page, the Puget Sound newspaper from the missing time period is next in line to be released. Bgwhite (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images checkI have serious concerns regarding images from the State of Washington due to the following disclaimer on their website: "Our site may contain text, artwork, photos or other content that is copyrighted by others and is being used with the express permission of the copyright holder. Therefore, it is recommended that you contact our Webmaster or Communications Director for permission to use information contained on this site." Have you been able to confirm the copyright status from each image sourced to the State of Washington? --Admrboltz (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I agree with Admrboltz here. We can't assume the official portraits are public-domain just because the website is. Wikipedia is a freely licensed site with copyrighted photos, for example. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It was unusual, which is why I confirmed it by email with [email protected]. They said they are in the public domain, but they wished to receive credit and use the Secretary of State privacy policy as that is their boss. Here is the digital archive's public domain and copyright policy that makes it crystal clear. If you view the photos at their site, you will notice no copyright or access restrictions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to have that email sent to OTRS listing the specific images they have guaranteed are free of copyright? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Email has been sent to OTRS. This was Washington's email response, "Thank you for checking with us. All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record." Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It passed OTRS and they have put their notice on the photographs. Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Email has been sent to OTRS. This was Washington's email response, "Thank you for checking with us. All photos retrieved from the Digital Archives website which you are using are in the public domain. Because they were created using state funds, they are a public record." Bgwhite (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to have that email sent to OTRS listing the specific images they have guaranteed are free of copyright? --Admrboltz (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It was unusual, which is why I confirmed it by email with [email protected]. They said they are in the public domain, but they wished to receive credit and use the Secretary of State privacy policy as that is their boss. Here is the digital archive's public domain and copyright policy that makes it crystal clear. If you view the photos at their site, you will notice no copyright or access restrictions. Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Images check - all OK now. -AdmrBoltz 22:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Admrboltz here. We can't assume the official portraits are public-domain just because the website is. Wikipedia is a freely licensed site with copyrighted photos, for example. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab/EL check - ELs are fine, though article links to John Rogers a dab page. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The lieutenant governors need a text indication of party, so we're not indicating information with color alone. —Designate (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been brought up before on other FLC governor candidates. For example, from the Utah FLC nomination.
- Per WP:COLOR color can not be the only way to convey an important information. However you use color as the only way to indicate if the lieutenant governor is a democrat or republican.
- My personal feeling is that since this is a list of governors, we can get away with that; want to know about the Lt. Governors, go to their list. However, I've dealt with this before on the California list and will add references to the ones that do not match their governor's party. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's not very important. You could have "All lieutenant governors were members of the same party as the corresponding governors unless specified." and just have a note for the few that are different. —Designate (talk) 22:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- My personal feeling is that since this is a list of governors, we can get away with that; want to know about the Lt. Governors, go to their list. However, I've dealt with this before on the California list and will add references to the ones that do not match their governor's party. --Golbez (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- Per WP:COLOR color can not be the only way to convey an important information. However you use color as the only way to indicate if the lieutenant governor is a democrat or republican.
- I stand by what I said there. There needs to be some text indication, even if most are the same party. For this one, many are from different parties so it's more significant. —Designate (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Golbez (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments (no verdict yet, just free-form thinking)
|
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Re overlinking, I've tended to repeatedly link people, but link parties only on their first appearance. Are you suggesting I should link people only once as well, including governors? In the past I thought it rude to ask someone to hunt for the link for someone who served more than once. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Overlinking" is a problem because it makes paragraphs hard to read and it runs together with more useful links. It doesn't apply here because people don't read tables in a predictable way. They could be reading from the bottom-up or picking any arbitrary date. Plus all the elements are isolated, so links aren't running together. There's no reason to be pedantic about what's linked. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I'm not being pedantic. If you're going to overlink, at least do it consistently within the article. All or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed wikilinks in the territorial governor table. I'm not sure if I do the same with Lt. Governors. I never heard the word pedantic... sad when I had to look up words that was defining pedantic. I'm a dullard. Bgwhite (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but I'm not being pedantic. If you're going to overlink, at least do it consistently within the article. All or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Overlinking" is a problem because it makes paragraphs hard to read and it runs together with more useful links. It doesn't apply here because people don't read tables in a predictable way. They could be reading from the bottom-up or picking any arbitrary date. Plus all the elements are isolated, so links aren't running together. There's no reason to be pedantic about what's linked. —Designate (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re overlinking, I've tended to repeatedly link people, but link parties only on their first appearance. Are you suggesting I should link people only once as well, including governors? In the past I thought it rude to ask someone to hunt for the link for someone who served more than once. --Golbez (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and Prosified 'Other high offices' as well as attempted to make sense of the party number situation. It might need a little brushing up on my rough language, but I think it's good enough to say Support. The last remaining question is, do we link the party line on each row? --Golbez (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"George E. Cole was appointed governor and took office, but his appointment was never ratified by the U.S. Senate and was replaced as governor after four months." Needs "he" before "was replaced".Note 15: "Governor Gregoire's first term expires January 14, 2009" needs an update.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Both fixed. --Golbez (talk) 04:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of updating it to the new footnote-style refs, because I loves them and hearts them and am so happy they exist. --Golbez (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It satisfies FL criteria now. Ruslik_Zero 19:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support In the references, "Our New Governor" (PDF). Puget Sound Herald. June 12, 1862" has a "PDF" in there. Does it mean the link is missing or "PDF" is put wrongly?--Cheetah (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the broken reference. It was missing "url=" and thus wasn't clickable. Bgwhite (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:57, 12 March 2011 [20].
- Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After being absent from FLC for the better part of a year, I suddenly return with two nominations in a month... Must be WikiCup season. And, I also realized that there haven't been any new FLs for WP:DOH in two years, so I decided to rectify that. Anyway, it's modeled after the exisiting Simpsons season FLs (particularily The Simpsons (season 14)) and, of course, all concerns and comments will be addressed by yours truly. Enjoy. -- Scorpion0422 00:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two issues: the lead could be a bit longer; and there needs to be a section on critical reception (asides from the awards). Nergaal (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the lead is appropriate, it summarizes the article and doesn't need to be gigantic. As for a critical reception section, why exactly is one needed? Out of all of the other Simpsons FLs, only one (season 3) has a reception section, and even then, it's quite small and only cites a few articles. I've never been a fan of having reception sections for seasons, because more often than not, they consist of extremely broad remarks, and a few comments on the top episodes. I feel that in many they are simply used as a crutch to lengthen articles and don't really add a whole lot. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 03:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Standards have changed since 2009 (Season 14) and 2008 (Season 3), a recent FL such as 30 Rock (season 4) is a good example of what season articles are these days, even though The Simpsons is known to pretty much everyone I do see a problem in the lead nothing is said about what the show is about, that'd be one point to improving the lead. Afro (Talk) 12:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, other than the plot information, the lead for this article contains pretty much everything in the 30 Rock lead. The episodes are all self-contained, and there is no connectivity between episodes, at least none that can be summed up in the lead. However, I have added a small summary of the series to the lead and a few other minor things. -- Scorpion0422 23:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, this would have my vote if it were to have a section on critical reception of the season. Nergaal (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
|
- Comments
- Animatics - why is this capitalized? It is not a proper noun.
- Sometimes you write numbers in letters and sometimes in digits. Choose one.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 12:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed animatics. As for the letters/digits, I believe that the policy is to write out numbers under 10, and use digits for the rest. -- Scorpion0422 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The show runner for the thirteenth production season was Al Jean who executive-produced 17 episodes. - Why did you write thirteenth in letters and seventeen in digits? -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it's based more on personal preference than anything, but I prefer writing out thirteenth, as opposed to using 13th. I just think it looks more professional. -- Scorpion0422 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Ordinal numbers don't need to be treated the same way. Jujutacular talk 04:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it's based more on personal preference than anything, but I prefer writing out thirteenth, as opposed to using 13th. I just think it looks more professional. -- Scorpion0422 17:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The show runner for the thirteenth production season was Al Jean who executive-produced 17 episodes. - Why did you write thirteenth in letters and seventeen in digits? -- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed animatics. As for the letters/digits, I believe that the policy is to write out numbers under 10, and use digits for the rest. -- Scorpion0422 16:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*Comments Just minor picks
Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nice work, what we have come to expect from Scorpion. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from Jujutacular talk 11:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
|
- Support Good work. Jujutacular talk 11:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets standards, though I find myself also thinking a critical reception section would be a good addition. Courcelles 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak support Courcelles raised a good point. As it stands, the list is in a good condition though. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:57, 12 March 2011 [21].
- Nominator(s): Courcelles, Strange Passerby
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL criteria – including being well-sourced with inline citations (after that ridiculous brouhaha brought on after my last FL got promoted). I expect minor changes might have to be made to the opening prose as with any FL candidate, but the body of the list is done. Redlinks are at a minimum right now (just four, down from about ten last month) and I expect that shouldn't be too much of an issue. I'm including User:Courcelles in this nomination for his work in helping to copyedit the prose and add all the inline citations. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 13:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I realise alt-text for some images is missing, I intend to add them asap. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
((I rather like Strange Passerby's turn of phrase there myself, but, you're right. Changed to home soil. Courcelles
|
- Comment: "he set both new Olympic records[9] and the largest winning margins ever seen at the Olympics" should be changed to "he set new Olympic records[9] and won by the largest margins ever seen at the Olympics". Tables appear consistent with the other FLs. Great work! Reywas92Talk 03:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've rewritten that sentence, though slightly differently than suggested. Courcelles 03:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just one little problem I see: the flow could be better in "At these Games, only the FRG competed, where they won...". The "where" is meant to go with "Games", not what follows. How about "Only the FRG competed at these Games, where they won..."?
- Done, thanks. Courcelles 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was my comment. There's now a repeating "where they won" which should be addressed. Do that and I'm on the support side.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- That was my braindead action of the week. Too bad it's only Monday, fixed. Courcelles 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my braindead action of the week. Too bad it's only Monday, fixed. Courcelles 02:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 2 uses DD MONTH YYYY, while throughout the rest of your referencing, you use MONTH DD, YYYY.
- Exceedingly picky: Ref 1 is "p.4." while Ref 4 is "p. 75" probably best to add a full stop onto the end of Ref 4!
Support The fact that my points are SO picky tells you that this article must be in pretty good shape, so I do haven't any problem in supporting, knowing that you will get these copy-edits done. Harrias talk 13:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad on both; they have now been fixed. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I think this list should be merged with 1952 Winter Olympics medal table. Since only 13 nations won medals, I don't see a reason why that should not be included here as a section. Nergaal (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That medal table could be merged, (I would oppose it, for the record) but not to here. Instead, it should be merged into 1952 Winter Olympics, by adding the last three nations to the ten given there, if anything is going to be so merged. This list is a daughter of the main article on the games, which already includes too much of the medal table to justify including it yet a third time. Courcelles 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since countries win medals in team sports like hockey, I don't think listing the countries that were medal winners is a bad idea. Nergaal (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this is hwo daughter articles work, anyone who gets to here is assumed to have already read; or be willing to read; 1952 Winter Olympics. Repeating a table from there is not necessary. Courcelles 08:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since countries win medals in team sports like hockey, I don't think listing the countries that were medal winners is a bad idea. Nergaal (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That medal table could be merged, (I would oppose it, for the record) but not to here. Instead, it should be merged into 1952 Winter Olympics, by adding the last three nations to the ten given there, if anything is going to be so merged. This list is a daughter of the main article on the games, which already includes too much of the medal table to justify including it yet a third time. Courcelles 02:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I agree it is in a good shape. Ruslik_Zero 19:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you swap the images? The top image in the article is a little creepy and doesn't look like anything related to the Olympics.
- Could you link to slalom? I have no idea what that is...
- "Of the 13 NOCs, which won medals, 10 won more than one" - why the first comma?
- Why is there a separate article for 1952 Winter Olympics medal table? It looks like something that can be included very easily.
- Otherwise looks good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The people who won medals have nothing to do with the medal table. As mentioned above by Courcelles, repeating that table here would be redundant.
- Comma removed, slalom linked, images swapped. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 05:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support No issues.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 18:57, 12 March 2011 [23].
- Nominator(s): Jaespinoza (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has all the elements necessary for inclusion, I used my work on the Latin Grammy Award for Best New Artist as the basis for this one. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick Comments
- an honor shouldn't that be a honor?
- [[Latin Grammy Awards]] -> [[Latin Grammy Award]]s-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 10:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Jaespinoza (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At GreatOrangePumpkin. No that's wrong. Honor has a silent 'h', so it should be "an honor" not "a honor". Magiciandude (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I always spell it like it is written, oops :/-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 22:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I would recommend adding at least two additional images, if possible (there appears to be enough room on the side)I believe Sergio also received five nominations, so the lead should be adjusted accordingly
I will take another look when I have more time. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Jaespinoza (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Resolved. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] I'm still confused here. In 2010 I assume a pair and an individual shared the award, right? The phrasing in the lead is confusing. And having only two nationality flags with three people is confusing, particularly as, on my screen, Gregg Field is on the same line as the Argentina flag. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Comments
- "creates a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists, nationally...." - which nation does that refer to?
- Fixed! Jaespinoza (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 2010 ceremony saw joint winners announced for the first time, Jorge Calandrelli and Gregg Field for their work on A Time For Love by Cuban trumpeter Arturo Sandoval;[7] they shared the award with Sergio George.[7]" is a messy multi-run-on sentence, I suggest amending it to "At the 2010 ceremony, joint winners were announced for the first time, when Jorge Calandrelli and Gregg Field were honored for their work on A Time For Love by Cuban trumpeter Arturo Sandoval. They shared the award with Sergio George.[7]"
- Fixed! Jaespinoza (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above also suggests that the producers are nominated for their work on a specific recording. If this is the case, should the recording not be mentioned in the table.......?
- Working on it! Jaespinoza (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Futher comment on the issue: While reviewing the database for Latin Grammy winners, they (the Latin Academy) only show the winner, not their work, do I have to put the nominated work? Jaespinoza (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Academy don't actually specify the work(s) for which the producers are nominated, then I would suggest that you say something like "The award for Producer of Year was first presented to the Cuban songwriter Emilio Estefan in 2000. In that year Estefan produced the albums..........etc etc" rather than specifically stating that he was nominated for producing those recordings, if the Academy don't specify it. Does that make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this concern been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this concern been addressed? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Academy don't actually specify the work(s) for which the producers are nominated, then I would suggest that you say something like "The award for Producer of Year was first presented to the Cuban songwriter Emilio Estefan in 2000. In that year Estefan produced the albums..........etc etc" rather than specifically stating that he was nominated for producing those recordings, if the Academy don't specify it. Does that make sense......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope that helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Per Wikipedia:ALBUMCAPS and Spanish capitalization, the albums and songs in Spanish need to have lower case letters unless it's a pronoun. Magiciandude (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Recanted comment due to discussion at WT:ALBUMS. Magiciandude (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The indefinite article has been take care of and the ALBUMCAPS for non-English titles have been discarded. Magiciandude (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, fundamentally disagree. Album names and single names should meet WP:V which means we use WP:RS to back them up. We don't "synthesise" the names based on academic rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
"The award is given to a producer whose recordings released during the eligibility period represents extraordinary creativity in the area of record production." For the grammar to work, both "recordings" and "represents" can't be plural. I'm thinking the second one should be changed.
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Two or more producers can participate as a team only if they have worked together only during the period of eligibility." The double use of "only" strikes me as redundant. I'm not convinced the first one is needed to get the point.
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sergio George's first name doesn't need to be repeated in the third paragraph. It doesn't seem consistent with what is done in the rest of the lead, and I wouldn't recommend it anyway.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 07:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaespinoza, have you asked all reviewers to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not know I had to do that. I will do it. Thanks. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Now it seems to satisfy FL criteria. Ruslik_Zero 19:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made a few minor edits to the list. I also included a key along with cell coloring to illustrate the joint awards in 2010 (see Grammy Award for Best Polka Album for another example). Hopefully Jae and other reviewers will be satisfied with this addition to the list. I support the promotion of this list assuming the concerns by other reviewers are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Grammy Award for Producer of the Year really should be a dab page between two Grammy Awards. Should change it to indicate if you intend to link to the classical or non-classical award.
- Fixed. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That's too minor to dance through the comments and capping procedure, though I still recommend you fix it. Courcelles 09:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support meets criteria--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:46, 5 March 2011 [24].
- Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I think it passes the FL criteria. However, this is nomination #5 and I wonder if this is a dead horse...Nergaal (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the best format to use? I find List of Nine Inch Nails concert tours to be much more elegant.—indopug (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is disappointing as an editor to get from reviewers comparisons of apples to oranges. That band does not have the same lineup between tours, and it went on tour 9 times; that list emphasizes that. Metallica has had very few member changes and a ton of different tours. Nergaal (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - By MusicMight.com About page it does not suggest to be reliable. Afro (Talk) 10:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- I'm gonna oppose due to lack of activity, my comment doesn't seem to of been addressed in the last 2 weeks while the article has received no edits in the past 15 days. Afro (Talk) 20:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I've removed the MMight reference and replaced with better ones. Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 60's has an incorrect publisher it should be Boston Globe. I think most of the problems I've had were addressed in previous Nominations. Afro (Talk) 10:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed and added author. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I'll support I have no problems with the list. Afro (Talk) 10:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to support if the above issue would actually be addressed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PRovisional support. Just have one issues: Second sentence starts with "Asides from Ulrich"; it should be Aside. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 15:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| *Comments
|
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
|
| Resolved comments from ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
*References comments
|
- Support now.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was promoted by Giants2008 20:46, 5 March 2011 [25].
- Nominator(s): Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what is our first FLC, this list has been in the works since before the new year, being the culmination of our efforts on the unifying topic of the battlecruisers of the Imperial Japanese Navy. This article passed a Milhist A-Class Review in November 2010. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am co-nominating this with Cam. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason the two B-65 are not named consistently? Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- they were never laid down or ordered (which is typically when they actually name them). They were still in the design phase when they were cancelled. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly what Cam said. Without names, I went with the second best option, which is their "yard number", or the number designation assigned to them by the Japanese builders. This is similar to what was done with the Yamato-class battleship and probably every other class, but those ships were eventually assigned actual names (Yamato, Musashi, Shinano), so their yard numbers are much less significant. I have added a footnote clarifying this.[26] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "Yard number 795 [not named]" vs "796 [not named]". Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The names themselves aren't consistent. Every other ship had a defined name – the best I could do here was give a yard number and notate that there were no actual names. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "Yard number 795 [not named]" vs "796 [not named]". Nergaal (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, exactly what Cam said. Without names, I went with the second best option, which is their "yard number", or the number designation assigned to them by the Japanese builders. This is similar to what was done with the Yamato-class battleship and probably every other class, but those ships were eventually assigned actual names (Yamato, Musashi, Shinano), so their yard numbers are much less significant. I have added a footnote clarifying this.[26] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- they were never laid down or ordered (which is typically when they actually name them). They were still in the design phase when they were cancelled. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments:
- Why are the entries of Hiei and Kirishima top-aligned, and you have a mix of top and center-aligned?
- Fixed all. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're consistent, although I find center alignment for these sorts of tables far easier on the eyes. But that's just me.
- Fixed all. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that the commissioned date for Akagi is a typo?
- yep. fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You would do well to move the (projected) to the Commissioned line rather than the ship entries.
- For which entries? the B-65s? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The B-65s and the Amagis.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For which entries? the B-65s? Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "with high fuel efficiency" reads oddly.
- fixed. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to 8-8 Fleet or programme?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already linked in the lead. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is the status of this nomination? No responses to Sturmvogel66's comments nor any edits to the article for two weeks. Continued inactivity will result in the nomination being withdrawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. It's been a rather busy week (papers, travel, etc). I've fixed Sturm's comments at this point. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 03:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| Comments:
Well written article, just a couple of questions.
|
Support now. bamse (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from The Bushranger (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments:
|
- I seem to recall that at least one Kongō's modification back to combat duty from training-ship status (which is not mentioned) was kept secret as it was in violation of the WNT?
- I'm of the view that the section is meant to provide a general overview without getting into the crazy specifics. Would adding a footnote solve the issue?
- That could work, but it's just a quibble.
- I'm of the view that the section is meant to provide a general overview without getting into the crazy specifics. Would adding a footnote solve the issue?
- Most of this is just nitpicking, overall it's great work and I'll be happy to support once "I've got questions" gets a "you've got answers". :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have dealt with most of your comments; the rest I have directed to Ed's attention. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. I'm happy to Support. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I see "Eight-Eight fleet" in the lead and "Eight-eight fleet" in the body. The capitalization of the second eight should be consistent throughout.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Giants' comment does not appear to have been addressed yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been now. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants' comment does not appear to have been addressed yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments.
In the lead it is written "The first phase of the Eight-Eight plan began in 1910 ...". In the first section: "The four ships were authorized in 1911 as part ..." . There seems to be a contradiction in dates.The lead should summarize the whole article, but there is no information about B-65 cruisers in it.
- Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the slow response. I will deal with all of these concerns (Ruslik0, Giants2008, The Bushranger) tomorrow afternoon. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mention of the B-65s, see the last sentence, second paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Ruslik been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now he has. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- item 1 has not been addressed. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Went back to my sources; it's 1910. Clarified for consistency. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- item 1 has not been addressed. Ruslik_Zero 20:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now he has. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has Ruslik been asked to revisit? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a mention of the B-65s, see the last sentence, second paragraph. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the slow response. I will deal with all of these concerns (Ruslik0, Giants2008, The Bushranger) tomorrow afternoon. Cam (Chat)(Prof) 07:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.