Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/August 2020
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My first time nominating a featured anything, so let's not be too rough :) I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a featured list such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*I will look at the tables at a later date..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Will look at the tables later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the tables
|
- Now that you have made the films table sortable, you need to edit the directors column so that they sort in surname order, not forename order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked few FLs like Kareena Kapoor filmography. Director column is sorted in forename order. Just curious.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case those lists are wrong. See WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- After writing the above, I checked the Kareena Kapoor list and the director column definitely sorts by surname (e.g. JP Dutta sorts under D) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made changes as per WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell. Please check if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 12:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What have you changed? I just checked and Anil Sharma still sorts under A, Harry Baweja under H, Vimal Kumar under K, etc. They need to sort based on the surname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I have just looked and you have put all the sort keys in the wrong place. You have put them right at the start of each row. They need to be against the cell they apply to i.e. the director -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What have you changed? I just checked and Anil Sharma still sorts under A, Harry Baweja under H, Vimal Kumar under K, etc. They need to sort based on the surname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made changes as per WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell. Please check if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 12:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- After writing the above, I checked the Kareena Kapoor list and the director column definitely sorts by surname (e.g. JP Dutta sorts under D) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case those lists are wrong. See WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked few FLs like Kareena Kapoor filmography. Director column is sorted in forename order. Just curious.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 15:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made the changes. Directors like Priyadarshan, Revathi doesn't have surname mentioned on their respective article, so I have kept the field blank. Please have a look.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the person just uses a single name then they should sort on that name. I've fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks mate. Let me know if more work is required. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If the person just uses a single name then they should sort on that name. I've fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies, I forgot to check back. Still a couple of issues with the refs - refs 57 and 78 still have made-up titles. Also, IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source so could do with being replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done IMDB refs replaced with news articles, title fixed.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For the name of her roles, you should sort them by last name, other wise it sorts them alphabetically by first name, which is strange. ~ HAL333 23:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Except some of her movies just used a single name.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣ 07:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ HAL333 16:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit to do here...
(WikiCup entry)
- "Primarily known" -> "Known primarily".
- Done
- Why isn't there a music video table?
- Actually I referred several list and there is no such table specifically for music videos
- "Kannada " is piped to a redirect back to itself.
- Done Redirecting to Kannada language
- " success in her career Shetty's films" in her career is redundant here as it's pretty clear we're talking about her acting career.
- Done
- "romantic drama" is linked on the second instance.
- Done
- " films like family" such as, instead of "like".
- Done
- "Garv: Pride & Honour " uses ampersand, not "and".
- Done
- Tamil is overlinked.
- Done
- You link "action film" but previously "action-drama" went unlinked.
- Done Not required to have linked actually so Unlinked.
- "opposite ... opposite" is repetitive.
- Done
- "is vocal about issues such as feminism and animal rights" what relevance to this list?
- Done Removed
- In fact, where are the music videos even mentioned??
- While writing I kept Kareena Kapoor filmography in mind. Since there is no mention of special appearance in songs, as a result I have not included.
- Table needs row scopes.
- please help how to do it.
- No need for refs column to be sortable.
- Done
- "Abbas-Mustan" needs en-dash.
- Done
- Sortable tables should link linkable items every time.
- Not getting. Can you please help how to do that.
- Things like the languages, should be linked every time, not just first time in the table, as it's sortable now there's no guarantee of which one (linked or unlinked) comes first. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not getting. Can you please help how to do that.
- There appears to be 50 films in the table. Compare that to the value in the infobox.
Done Table includes special appearances as well, including 51 in total.
- Why isn't Junoon notable?
- Cannot create an article on it as I am not so sure about the movie.
- Can still link to a potential article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cannot create an article on it as I am not so sure about the movie.
- TV table, don't sort refs and why aren't they centrally aligned like the film table?
- Done
- Notes don't normally sort as they're prose and sorting is not helpful.
- Done
- Spaced hyphens should be en-dashes.
- Done
That's it for a quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
(Planning to claim WikiCup points for this review.)
(Ref numbers as of this permalink.)
Thanks for your work on this list so far. — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 22:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- I have rectified all the issues highlighted. Sorry it took longer than expected.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 06:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, including on sourcing (spotchecks done): all issues have now been addressed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Director comment – I was asked to come here and address the fact that TRM's oppose has remained intact despite responses to most of his concerns. Upon looking at the list, there are a couple of issues that remain unaddressed.
The big one is that row scopes are still not in the tables, which goes against style guidelines. Mahesh Babu filmography, another page currently at FLC, has row scopes included, so that could serve as an article that will show you the formatting required.Also, TRM commented that sortable tables should have repeated links when possible. It wouldn't concern me much to leave the language links as is, but the directors and awards should probably be linked in each appearance. Just adding links to the cells that don't already have them would be enough to fix the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ✅ Hi @Giants2008: I have included row scopes in both the tables.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:39, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008: Few directors have not been linked because there isn't an article on them. Is it okay to link awards in same table twice?
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by MWright96
Plenty of work to do to get this list up to the necessary standard. MWright96 (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- @MWright96: 25 Cents FC appears to have addressed or responded to all of your points; are you satisfied with their responses? --PresN 20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – MWright96 (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there a parenthesis in ref 19's title?
- Done
- When I clicked on ref 20 it wouldn't go to a specific page, just went to the home?
- Done Added new ref
- Ref 21 missing date
- Done
That's all I got, consistency and reliability looks good for the rest. I linked some publishers since only some were linked, take a look at the refs and double check that all publishers/works who have a WP article are linked. Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot mate--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 06:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 14:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC) [2].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie Portman is an Israeli-American actress who has received various awards and nominations, including an Academy Award and two Golden Globe Awards. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done - I couldn't find anything wrong. My only suggestion is that you wikilink Isabelle Huppert and Elle in the table. ~ HAL333 13:58, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by MWright96
Those are all the points that stood out during my read through. MWright96 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Nothing more from me. MWright96 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Sentence about Black Swan ends in a comma rather than a full stop
- "Since 2011, Portman has received one Teen Choice Award nomination" - why "since 2011"? You could equally say "Since 1981, Portman has received one Teen Choice Award nomination". It just reads oddly......
- "Best Depiction Of Nudity, Sexuality, or Seduction" => "Best Depiction of Nudity, Sexuality, or Seduction"
- "EMA board of directors" => "EMA Board of Directors"
- Russian Awards - she was nominated for specific roles in 2007 but not in later years?
- Sorting order on the "result" column goes Won > Nominated > 3rd > 2nd > Runner-up, which doesn't seem right
- Think that's it from me. Nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, Thanks for the comments. I have made these changes. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still has "Since 2011, Portman has received a Teen Choice Award nomination for playing the Marvel Cinematic Universe character, Jane Foster" - why "since 2011"? I can't see any reason for that being there...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, She started to play Jane Foster since 2011 from Thor, sorry, I forgot to say that. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 08:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, in that case it needs re-phrasing to "Portman has received a Teen Choice Award nomination for playing the Marvel Cinematic Universe character, Jane Foster, a role she has played since 2011" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, Done, thanks! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing I just noticed - under the MTV Awards, you rowspan Black Swan across three rows, but against the Alliance of Women Film Journalists you don't do the same. Better to do it the same way everywhere to be consistent...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now, may take a second from the amount of refs. Based on your other lists though, I doubt I'll find much, if any :) Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 52 author and date missing
- Ref 68 date? (or looks like just year in this case)
- That's all I got, reliability looks good. After these minor fixes, easy pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aza24, All done. Thanks for the review! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work (as always!) pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 30 August 2020 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [3].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Following the successful promotion of List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments earlier today, I am pleased to nominate another list of Smash tournaments. Unlike Ultimate, which will still hold major tournaments in the future (pending the end of COVID-19), every major Smash for Wii U tournament to be held has been held. This list is finalized.
I've taken the lessons from the previous nomination and incorporated them into this article - sorting, centered references, not overlinking cities, the works... I think. So hopefully it'll be as smooth or smoother than the last nomination. I am still trying to source an image of the lead, though I didn't want to hold up the nomination because I might never get one; I've reached out to some people on Flickr asking them to re-license photos and haven't had any luck, but I'll look for more people to ask later this week.
I am willing to reciprocate FLC reviews if you ask (I'll also trade reviews of this nomination for GAN reviews). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Medusa
|
- Support — I would appreciate your thoughts on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Charlize Theron/archive1. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I'd be tempted to simply move one of the existing images into the lead, probably from one of the sections that has more than one
- "2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title, Ultimate, released" => "2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title, Ultimate, was released"
- Note A isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
- "Entrant counts are drawn tournament brackets." => "Entrant counts are drawn from tournament brackets."
- Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've made all the changes except for the image. I'll do that if I can't get an image of either ZeRo or a crowd shot from one of the matches. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Update: There is now an image of one of the tournaments in the lead. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: - nice image, but is there any chance you could clarify what "pools matches" are in some way? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: I've reworded it to remove the word "pools". It was unnecessary jargon. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support by Lee Vilenski
[edit]I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it "crossover", "cross-over" or "cross over"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Players are eliminated from the tournament after losing two matches - perhaps actually mention it's a double elimination tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonzalo "ZeRo" Barrios - should we not link the full term here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Five editions of the PGR rankings were released, covering tournaments between 2015 and 2018, the year that the next Super Smash Bros. title - as this leads on, maybe "from 2015 to 2018 - the year..." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know you are using GEOLAND, but some things are incosistently linked... Why is New Jersey linked, but not Las Vegas? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Entrants is quite a casual term - maybe participants? Even entries is better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some source names are linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PGStats (11 July 2017). "PGRv4 TTS". Google Docs. Retrieved 25 July 2020. - where are these from? These don't seem particularly reliable.
- That's all I've got. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review Lee Vilenski. I'm not able to do the FA review tonight, but I will make sure to get to it this week. My replies are below in the order of your comments above.
- 1) The main article uses crossover, and both articles link to List of crossovers in video games, so I've preserved that spelling.
- 2) Done. The wording may need tweaking; any feedback is welcome.
- 3) I've made the change. I've seen both and have no preference.
- 4) Broke it into two sentences. How does it look now?
- 5) My strategy was to link to cities that are small enough to have "City, State" titles, and I linked to the whole article title. I can easily change it, if you think I should.
- I think so, I'm pretty sure the City, state format can be more for disambiguation rather than the size of the place. It's a bit of an easter egg to link to [[X, Y]], rather than [[X, Y|X]], Y
- 6) I changed it to competitors in the lead.
- No, I mean the header of the tables. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 7) Fixed.
- 8) This is the official tournament listing by PGStats, as linked to from the PGR FAQ.
- I think this needs to be a bit better explained it just looks like a link to google docs at the moment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me know if anything needs a follow-up. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: I've changed the links to be city-only and added a note to explain the two Google Sheets. I'm not really thrilled at the idea of renaming entrants in the table though. The main source for that column, smash.gg, uses entrants, and it's worth noting that not everyone that entered actually participated (every event has a few no-shows). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: Just wanted to follow up on this. Is everything good to go? Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lee Vilenski: I've changed the links to be city-only and added a note to explain the two Google Sheets. I'm not really thrilled at the idea of renaming entrants in the table though. The main source for that column, smash.gg, uses entrants, and it's worth noting that not everyone that entered actually participated (every event has a few no-shows). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Some thoughts
--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments by MWright96
|
Support – MWright96 (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Will do tomorrow – lots of refs! Aza24 (talk) 09:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs 12 and 13 both missing author and dates
- What makes Panda Global a reliable source?
- Link Paste (magazine), the mentions of Smashboards and Kotaku
- That's all I got, reliability looks OK. Not a huge fan of the use of Smashboards, but given it's mostly statistical information cited from there, it's probably fine. Fix these minor things and you're good for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aza24 Links and names/dates are done. Panda Global/PGStats are only used to cite the tournament listings. That their ranking is considered the gold standard is cited by "Van Allen, Eric (20 January 2018). "The Competitive Smash 4 Scene Is Anxiously Awaiting Nintendo's Next Big Move". Kotaku. Retrieved 31 July 2020.". I can probably find more sources that say the same thing (I have two in the list of Ultimate tournaments), but it's not something I'd expect to be seriously contested. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that reasoning is fine by me. Good work here, the rest of the reliability looks good – pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Thanks! I just added a second source, from ESPN, about the Panda Global rankings being the gold standard. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, that reasoning is fine by me. Good work here, the rest of the reliability looks good – pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [4].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A total of 49 of these number one country song lists have now been successfully promoted to FL, so here's what I hope will be the 50th in the set. Please note that my WP time will be minimal between August 8th and 18th, but otherwise I will respond super-promptly to comments, and anything raised between those dates will be jumped on as soon as I am back full-time if it hasn't already been..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from The Squirrel Conspiracy
[edit]This is in pretty good shape already. Remarkably little to poke at.
- "In August 1964 Jim Reeves achieved the first of several posthumous number ones with "I Guess I'm Crazy"; the singer had been killed in a plane crash the previous month." - Please clarify "first of several". Was this the first time for this person, the first time anyone appeared on the list posthumously, or the first posthumous entry of 1964?
- Lefty Frizzell's image being wider than anyone else's looks a tad strange (the image is taller than the section at 1440p, so the lead image and the body images are stacked one on top of another). Consider making all four pictures the same width.
- The own work claim for File:At San quentin 1969 2014-05-04 00-14.jpg strikes me as slightly dubious. Not enough to file a deletion nomination, but it'd be safer to choose another image of clearer copyright status, like File:Johnny Cash 1977.jpg (or another one from Commons:Category:Johnny Cash).
- Please add a Wikipedia:Short description.
That's it. Ping me when you want me to check back. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: all done. I decided to go with a different picture of ol' Lefty in the lead. In my opinion, landscape images work better in the lead anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude: The replacement image of Johnny Cash has the same concern as the first one. I'm generally distrustful of own work claims where the upload is a heavily cropped old photo and the uploader has minimal edits (Commons or cross-wiki). I've seen too many turn out to be not own work. However, it's not something to hold the nomination up over, so I'm going to go ahead and Support now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Squirrel Conspiracy: I've changed it for a different image just to make absolutely sure.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude: The replacement image of Johnny Cash has the same concern as the first one. I'm generally distrustful of own work claims where the upload is a heavily cropped old photo and the uploader has minimal edits (Commons or cross-wiki). I've seen too many turn out to be not own work. However, it's not something to hold the nomination up over, so I'm going to go ahead and Support now. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Medusa
- would stand until 2013, when Florida Georgia Line → stand until 2013 when
- most influential vocalists, gained his final → music's most influential vocalists gained his
- Another great list. Great work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: - I have done the first one but I am going to have to respectfully disagree with you on the second one, because that comma is needed to end the subordinate clause which starts with the comma after Frizzell's name....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Once again, great work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one well-done. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – couldn't find anything. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doubt there will be much, if anything to say, but doing now. Aza24 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I got nothing :) All consistent and reliable sources/sourcing. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 15:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Other than that, the list is seamless. ~ HAL333 00:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Are you planning on making this a featured topic? ~ HAL333 15:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: - the thought has crossed my mind, but I'm not really sure what the "cap stone" would be. I can't really see how List of Billboard number-one country hits could be expanded to FL standard..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. It would have be one heck of a featured topic though. ~ HAL333 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe just Hot Country Songs? The lead article doesn't need to precisely match the scope of the topic, as long as it encompasses it. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. It would have be one heck of a featured topic though. ~ HAL333 17:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: - the thought has crossed my mind, but I'm not really sure what the "cap stone" would be. I can't really see how List of Billboard number-one country hits could be expanded to FL standard..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [5].[reply]
- Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list is about records and statistics of association football club Burnley F.C.. It includes honours, club records, managerial records, and player records. I have used other similar featured lists as a benchmark. Looking forward to the comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Drive-by comment: "All records and statistics are correct as of the 2019–20 season." - how can they be when the season hasn't finished yet.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments and support, ChrisTheDude! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments WikiCup review
That's enough for a first pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review and support, The Rambling Man! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
Giants2008 Thank you very much for your comments, I've addressed them all. If there's anything else I need to amend, please let me know. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support – My few small issues have been resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the review and support, Giants2008! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good. Consistent formatting and use of reliable sources – I tweaked the ISBNS. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [6].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Along with the Newbery Medal (already a FL), the Caldecott Medal is one of the two most prestigious awards in American children's literature. Winning the award can mean hundreds of thousands of copies of the book are sold. I look forward to the feedback offered by reviewers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to ping people who commented at the FL review for Newbery Medal in hopes that they might be willing to review here too. @PresN, Reywas92, BeatlesLedTV, Aoba47, and The Rambling Man:. Thanks for considering this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping. I have already committed myself to three FAC reviews so I unfortunately do not have time at the present to help with this review. If this FLC is still up when I am done with those three reviews, I will try my best to come back here. Apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
[edit]I'll submit this as part of my WikiCup contributions.
- I'd be tempted to move those odd three refs out of the lead and into the main body. They look odd sitting there on their own. Even the one on the quote as that's covered again in the main body.
- I'm happy to do it. What's quoted there is identical to what I was encouraged to cite in the LEAD for Newbery Medal so I did the same here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I think if we check MOS, it's fine to not cite quotes in the lead if the same quotes are used and cited in the main part of the article. If you'd prefer to leave it, that's not a major issue. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I had already made the change. I prefer "clean" LEADs personally. Let's see what others say :). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I think if we check MOS, it's fine to not cite quotes in the lead if the same quotes are used and cited in the main part of the article. If you'd prefer to leave it, that's not a major issue. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to do it. What's quoted there is identical to what I was encouraged to cite in the LEAD for Newbery Medal so I did the same here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "worthy runners-up," maybe "runners-up they deem worthy"
- "runner-ups "Honor" " why isn't this "runners-up" as before?
- The point here is that they explicitly changed the name from runners-up to Honor. I edited to try to make this more clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant runners-up vs runner-ups. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant runners-up vs runner-ups. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The point here is that they explicitly changed the name from runners-up to Honor. I edited to try to make this more clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "English and in the United States first and be " maybe "English, in the United States first and be " to avoid "and ... and ..."
- "Publishers Weekly " should be in italics.
- "changed and tweaked" these mean essentially the same things?
- "simultaneously to " in?
- "any honor books. Honor books may" repetitive.
- The table calls them "Honor Books" be consistent with capitalisation.
- "The annual number of runners-up has ranged from one to six, same as for the Newbery Medal during the same timespan, from 1938. Indeed, for twenty years from 1993 to 2012 there were two to four Honors every year." not sure this is needed at all, it's self-evident from the table I think.
- "Nothing At All" -> "Nothing at All"
- "who won two honors and the Caldecott Medal in 1950," this is confusing, he didn't win two "Honors books" did he?
- "Both of Chris Van Allsburg's Caldecott winners have been adapted into films." unreferenced.
- Check all captions are referenced if they're making claims not substantiated in the list/prose.
- For me, the row scope element should be the primary element, and that's the name of the illustrator, not the year of the award.
- You're suggesting organizing the table by illustrator rather than chronologically? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm say the
scope=row
goes with the illustrator, not the year. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Listen I know how much I don't know about tables. I have no objection to this change, but there is scoping for each column right now not just year and it follows the practice at both Newbery Medal and the various Hugo Awards FLs (e.g. Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation which have been my templates here. Unless I'm still not understanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no big deal. I know the cols have scope, that's fine, it was just the element you had selected for the row scopes, in my mind it's the most important element of information for each row, and that's the illustrator names, not the year, but I guess I should just be grateful there are scopes there at all! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen I know how much I don't know about tables. I have no objection to this change, but there is scoping for each column right now not just year and it follows the practice at both Newbery Medal and the various Hugo Awards FLs (e.g. Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation which have been my templates here. Unless I'm still not understanding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm say the
- You're suggesting organizing the table by illustrator rather than chronologically? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Multiple award winners" typically these tables are initially sorted by the number of awards, not alphabetical order.
- Minor point, the source for the table has 2013 as retrieval year, but presumably it was accessed post-2013 for the post-2013 receipients!
- New York Times Book Review. -> The New York Times Book Review.
That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: thanks for the review. I believe I have implemented all your suggested changes with one exception (and a couple assorted comments) above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: seeing you around reminded me of this - are you still looking for changes before you can support its promotion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, sorry I missed this. I've added it to my backlog and will do my best to get back it tomorrow. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Rambling Man: seeing you around reminded me of this - are you still looking for changes before you can support its promotion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- "To be eligible for a Caldecott book the book…" --> "To be eligible for a Caldecott the book…"
- "… the book must be published in English, in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator" is clunky (due to sentence structure, "published" is implied to precede each subsequent statement, which fails for the final "be drawn…" statement). My suggestion would be: "… the book must be published in English in the United States first and be drawn by an American illustrator."
- "It can also increases…" --> "It can also increase…"
- Generally, this article has a lot of missing commas. For example, this sentence feels like a run-on sentence due to lack of commas: "Until 1958 a previous winner could win again only by unanimous vote of the committee and in 1963 joint winners were first permitted." Or consider this sentence, which should use a semicolon and a comma after "however": "In recent years there has been an increase in the number of minority characters and illustrators recognized, however this is something which has fluctuated over the history of the award." These are far from the only examples, and further proofreading is needed here.
- Additionally, you should also bracket appositives with commas on both sides. I also use commas after introductory adverb phrases; for instance, in the second example, I would follow "In recent years" with a comma, though this is based more on personal preference. For more, see MOS:COMMA.
- Use {{'}} for the apostrophe in "Where the Wild Things Are's"
- Remove double bolding for Marcia Brown in section Multiple award winners
- Archive all online sources
—RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @RunningTiger123: thanks for your time. I have done all the wording suggestions you made and done my best go at addressing the commas. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Cool, I know I wasn't super clear on the commas, which are fairly subjective anyway, and the rest of the grammar looks good. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there two commas for ref 1? Well actually for this one "Association for Library Service to Children" should be the author, "American Library Association" the publisher, 2018 for the year. The edition parameter is usually for "1st, 2nd, special, Anniversary" edition stuff so I wouldn't worry about that
- Refs 2 and 4 are the same?
- What is ref 6? A PDF or something? If so add "|format=PDF"
- Do full date for ref 7 and needs retrieve date
- What is 39–40 mean in ref 10?
- It refers to the page numbers using |pages in the journal template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, that's weird that the template doesn't generate a "pp." or something. You could consider adding it yourself but it's probably fine without it. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It refers to the page numbers using |pages in the journal template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Since ref 14 is in the NYT archive you should add the page and section numbers
- Refs 19 and 20 missing dates
- Ref 22 date needed
- wrong date for ref 27?
- What does "p. 55 " mean in ref 28? And is there a missing URL?
- Both people in ref 29 should be listed as editors, |editor-last1= |editor-first1= |editorlast2=...
- Ref 34 should probably be spelled out as The Wall Street Journal
- Retrieval date for ref 33?
- I would rather see the American Library Association and Association for Library Service to Children spelled out every time rather than abbreviated
- You need links for The Reading Teacher, The New York Times, School Library Journal, Association for Library Service to Children, Publishers Weekly, The Horn Book Magazine, Curbed, Cambridge University Press, American Library Association, Tor.com, Hogan's Alley (magazine), The Wall Street Journal and Smithsonian Magazine otherwise the linking would be inconsistent
Thanks Aza24 for doing this source review. I believe I have implemented your suggested improvements with the exception to the answer of a question above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, I linked two publishers in the further reading section. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC) [7].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the article now meets the FL criteria. After recently promoting 2019 in cue sports, I have used this experience to craft the year prior. Let me know what thoughts you have on the list :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 04:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Formatting and refs look good. ~ HAL333 02:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Sorry for the lag. ~ HAL333 04:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude |
---|
;Drive-by comment
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from BennyOnTheLoose
Resolved comments from BennyOnTheLoose |
---|
The article looks really good, I have a few points for consideration. Possibly more later. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Comments from TRM
[edit]WikiCup review etc.
- "The year of 2018 included professional tournaments surrounding table-top cue sports" a curious start, the tournaments didn't really "surround" the sports, they were tournaments in which those sports were competed in. And you have "table-top" here to distinguish these cue sports from "non-table-top" cue sports? What are those?
- Things like ground billiards, trucco and even things like hockey, polo and croquette have histories with being cue sports. However, these would rarely be called such in the modern day, thus the distinction. I've reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "pool disciplines" perhaps "numerous" in front of pool.
- added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "notable amateur cue sports " using which inclusion criteria?
- I've denoted this as "international". We include things like European championships, but not the English championship, so this seems like a suitable distinction. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead feels a little short. You could cover a few other things, like Gilchrist pretty much sweeping billiards, etc.
- I have expanded this somewhat. Not really sure what is supposed to go here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Caption needs an en-dash in the scoreline.
- fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ng On-yee " our article doesn't use a capital Y.
- fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not seeing any row scopes in the tables.
- Which row would be suitable for the scope? The event name or the date? They both look weird to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "European Pool Championships" ->"European Pool Championship".
- They are actually called this, as there's more than one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "(m) refers to men, (f) to women" why not (w) for women??
- Not on this list - but it's quite often to have "wheelchair" pool, which I would use w. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like AZBilliards needs registration for access so those URLs need the appropriate url-access parameter.
- Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wang Xiaotong 5-0" en-dash in scoreline.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of tours are piped to redirects, what's the point of that?
- I took a look, but I couldn't see which ones you mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "In events where there was more than one" are we to assume when there wasn't more than one event that it was always men then?
- events are generally open to both genders, which is why I haven't denoted such. There's usually a women's event if the regular events isn't mixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A shame there are no images outside the lead. I wonder if you could add an image for each section?
- The issue is the lack of images for people I'd like to show. For instance, for pool, the obvious targets are Joshua Filler, Han Yu and even Skyler Woodward as MVP of the Mosconi Cup. They don't have images. I could add one for Neils Feijen though I suppose. Would this not stretch the tables though? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You link Singapore but not Gibraltar, why?
- unlinked Singapore. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the theory behind whether someone should have a red link or not be linked at all? For instance, Therese Klompenhouwer won a world title, but doesn't even have a red link?
- I've gone ahead and linked everyone. 11:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ref 20 doesn't seem to contain any of the information it's supposed to be referencing. I'll do a closer inspection of refs later, but that was just a spot check.
- I have exapanded this ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Izmir is İzmir.
- fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 22 looks like lazy referencing as well. The tournament results do appear to be uniquely referenceable (PDFs for each) so that's what should be linked here, not a generic search engine landing page.
- Semih Saygıner , not Semih Sayginer.
- changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "2017-18 snooker season and 2018-19 snooker season" en-dashes.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing where most of the dates for these events are referenced? Don't forget, we can't rely on the target articles for the tournaments for that kind of information.
- " Page 3-2" en-dash.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Irish Seniors Masters" the tournament appears to be called "Seniors Irish Masters"
- Ref 69 has no results.
- done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Similar to the linking of players, what makes IBSF World Under-18 Championship notable enough for a red link but World Snooker Team Cup not?
- Added - I've linked everything, and taken the liberty to do some links to the ill versions of the ones that exist on dewiki. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Refs, I'll take a closer look on a second pass as I noted, but quickly, BBC Sport refs, one seems to include BBC as a publisher, and one seems to link BBC Sport, but not the first one.
- I'll take a look through them. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of work to do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've got the majority of the above. Let me know if the date refs are too much. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from The Squirrel Conspiracy
[edit]Resolved comments from The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) |
---|
;Comments from The Squirrel Conspiracy
Note: This is a QPQ review. I'm reviewing this and Lee Vilenski is reviewing List of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments.
Please ping me when you've responded. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Since all the prose and formatting issues have been resolved and we've done the best we can do on images within Wikipedia's limitations, I am happy to support. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from MWright96
|
Support – No further queries from this editor. MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]It looks like TRM has essentially done the source review, so there will probably be little left to say here.
- The biggest thing I found is that it's sometimes "worldsnooker.com" and sometimes "World Snooker" for what are from seemingly the same website. I don't really have a preference for which one should be used as long as it's consistent.
- Besides that everything seems reliably sourced and formatted. Fix the first point and you'll be good. Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be all fixed now Aza24! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work here. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Should be all fixed now Aza24! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias
[edit]Resolved comments from Harrias talk 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
* In light of the recent RFC on table captions (closed back in May) and how FLCs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included in both tables. This quote by PresN might apply to this list: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "| {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
|- | {{dts|March 2}}–4 ! scope="row" | [[2018 World Pool Masters|World Pool Masters]] | Gibraltar || [[Niels Feijen]] defeated [[Shane Van Boening]], 8–4
That's it from me on a first pass; I haven't looked at the lead at all, only the table. I will probably claim WikiCup points for this review. Harrias talk 07:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, nice work. Harrias talk 17:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting. --PresN 20:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- 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 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it serves as an attractive and informative compilation about the episodes in the American reality singing competition series The Masked Singer. Three seasons have aired thus far on network television (Fox) and I believe it contains valuable and accurate information that is useful to readers. While the series is currently airing (the finale is on May 27, 2020), edits will be made at least weekly until then to add the ratings for each episode. However, I believe the rest of the article is stable (e.g., the ratings section is complete (at this point) in my opinion). This is my first nomination of any kind for good article/featured list/featured article, etc., so I'm hoping this will be an insightful experience. Heartfox (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Drive-by comment
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
|
---|
Everything should be set after that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support page now looks good enough to be FL as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
[edit]Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The column headings with the space before the reference contravenes MOS, so this can't pass really. And yes, this impacts dozens if not hundreds of FLs, but we need to push back on inadequate coding of templates. I've added a request to fix the relevant template here but I don't see this being solved in short order. Happy to be proved wrong though! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(WikiCup entry)
That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 06:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Guerillero
[edit]- Per MOS Image you really should use thumb to add a caption to the logo. The alt text also needs some work --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero: Thanks for your comments. I've changed the alt text to hopefully be more descriptive. Is it okay to leave the image as "frameless", though? I don't know what I would be explaining with a caption. Title cards of TV series in infoboxes don't use captions. Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions is pretty clear on the need for a caption. In a info box there is still a caption of sorts --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero: I've added a caption, taking inspiration from the first note in WP:CAPOBVIOUS. Do you think it works? Heartfox (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions is pretty clear on the need for a caption. In a info box there is still a caption of sorts --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guerillero: Thanks for your comments. I've changed the alt text to hopefully be more descriptive. Is it okay to leave the image as "frameless", though? I don't know what I would be explaining with a caption. Title cards of TV series in infoboxes don't use captions. Heartfox (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now Aza24 (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Got nothing, consistent dates, authors, publishers and publisher links. Everything is reliable, easy pass for source review – good work here. Aza24 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Shearonink
[edit]Have read through the List a number of times, will read through several more times before possible support. Shearonink (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The structure and style are both especially well-done and the List is nicely laid-out. A little thing perhaps but I really like the color-coding of the table headers (I guess that would go under Criteria 5a?) - visually appealing and clearly delineates the different seasons. Shearonink (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind comments, Shearonink. Sorry I didn't notice them earlier! Heartfox (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [9].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for Featured list status because I am looking for feedback from other editors - what do folks think about the two different main sections? I nominated this List for possible FLC status this past fall (2019). The nomination was closed in January 2020 as 'Not promoted' with 2 Supports and 2 Opposes. The List passed all other objections and was brought "up to code" but the main sticking point for the 2 Opposes is that the List's 2 main sections are in different styles - the first being a sortable Table, the second being a text-List. This general format of the two sections is how I found the List when I first started working on it in 2010 - myself and the other editors subsequently retained the general style of two sections. The major section about cyclists who died during a race was eventually completely converted into a sortable Table. The cyclists who died during training section seems fundamentally different to me, these were almost exclusively people who died as individuals, not racing under a team banner, and with the exception of perhaps two instances these other cyclists were killed in training accidents - the text-list format seemed to fit their situation and so that format wasn't changed. I do have to say right off that I do not want to split the two sections into different articles - the world of cycling does not seem to make that distinction, all cyclists who have died during competitions or during training seem to be generally memorialized together. Thanks in advance for any and all comments - Shearonink (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Chidgk1
[edit]I don't have a problem with the different styles - only if any friends or relatives of the cyclists who died during training said they were not being respected as much would I think it should be changed.Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Chidgk1Thank you for your thoughts on this. So far as I know no one has objected to the two different subsections of the List as presenting more or presenting less respect, one over the other. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley Miles
[edit]Oppose.- The list has a hatnote saying that it is incomplete, and it therefore fails criterion 3 that it is comprehensive. It also fails to provide any criteria for inclusion in the list out of the countless people who have died in cycle accidents. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles Re: {{Expand list|date=August 2019}} - I don't know that having that particular template on the List is against FL criteria. I was advised to put that template onto the List by The Rambling Man because the list will always be incomplete, it will never be finished, it is an open-ended List. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point about criteria...at one point I seem to remember that the list was for professional cyclists only, but that would have excluded collegiate cyclists and well-known amateur cyclists so they were kept/included. If the List was only of people notable enough for a Wikipedia article then that would delete many o the amateurs and most of the 1890-1930s professionals. I suppose the lead section could have something in it along the lines of "This list consists of the deaths of well-known or notable athletes/cyclists"...something like that. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Incomplete lists are a fact of life and shouldn't preclude a list being featured. It is a reasonable point to note that inclusion criteria are not noted, but perhaps it's simply that the individuals noted are notable enough for inclusion as standalone articles in Wikipedia. See any alumni lists for other examples of "incomplete" lists with Wikipedia notability as their inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles There were internal editing notes of <!--Comment: Please only add cyclists with referenced information--></ nowiki> or <nowiki><!--Comment: Please only add professional or notable amateur cyclists with referenced information--> which I changed to <!--Comment: Only add professional or notable/well-known amateur cyclists along with referenced information--> but perhaps that wasn't sufficient re:criteria to have a name in the List. so I've added some content here to the lead section, let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I still do not see any satisfactory criteria for inclusion. It is not a general list of cycling-related deaths as all deaths are in connection with cycle races - where details are supplied, but in some cases they are not. It is not only a list of deaths in cycle accidents as it includes people who suffered heart attacks, and not only of cyclists as it includes a trainer hit by a motorcycle. It is not only deaths during races as it includes deaths in training. The one thing the people on the list seem to have in common is that their death was connected with cycle racing Maybe a more accurate title would be List of people who died as a result of incidents connected with cycle racing. How did you find the people on the list? Are they listed in a reference work? The Rambling Man suggests people notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but very few on this list are. Lists of alumni are based on a reliable source published by a university, with selection of people notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I do not see any equivalent criteria here. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I agree with your early point, the inclusion criteria is not defined here, but as to your latter point, the lists of alumni I've reviewed most certainly are not from a university source. That is simply untrue I'm afraid. If you think "incomplete" lists should not be WP:FL then you should start an RFC to enshrine that in our guidelines. Right now, that's just not the case. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And just a point of information on your opening statement, that an "incomplete list" fails criterion 3, that's not actually true. Firstly it's only criterion 3a which is relevant here, which states clearly " It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Now I think you have a point on "defined scope" as I mentioned above, but the clear statement following that which you haven't included in your opposition is "providing at least all of the major items" which means to say that a list doesn't have to be exhaustive if (as the next caveat in the criterion says) it's not "practical". Bottom line here, it would be helpful to define the inclusion criteria. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification. As I see it, there are three issues. 1. The title article does not explain the content. 2. The criteria are not explained. 3. The nominator has also not explained how the article meets "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items". On the last point, I am not sure whether I am correct or a reviewer should assume that the nominator has covered all major items. Can you advise on this please The Rambling Man? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. So (1) the title always needs to be succinct and that relates pertinently to your point (2) so as long as we (a) define the inclusion criteria and (b) come up with a snappy title which complies with that, no problem. As for (3) that's a fair point and could/should result in a closer look at 3a if you really feel it's a problem. It's a question of upon whom the burden is I suppose. Once the criteria of this kind of open-ended list are suitably defined, it's primarily up to you to note omissions as there will never be a single source for a comprehensive list. It's a far cry from a list of special scientific interest sites list (for example) which is completely defined in one URL, or a list of historical events completely covered in a book. We have traditionally allowed {{dynamic list}} to exist as FL as long as the community consensus agrees that as much as possible has been done to include everything which meets the criteria. So, back to that, it's up to Shearonink to provide the inclusion criteria here, and then we can move on to the next discourse, relating to comprehensiveness, right? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies to Dudley Miles concerns
- So, I just want to make sure...the "Incomplete" notation/template is correct/allowed yes?
- The Rambling Man is the authority on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In lists such as this (and alumni lists as I noted, for example) it's fine. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing the title makes sense, I think something like List of cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents would be all-encompassing enough for the cyclists who died during a race and the cyclists who died while training or otherwise. The reason some of the "heart-attack people" are included is because there is a somewhat odd history of cyclists having heart issues during a race or during training, some experts saying that this is because they are cyclists - doping? Maybe. Over-exertion of the heart? Perhaps. The known health/heart issues of these amazing athletes has certainly at least become part of cycling's background noise, in somewhat the same way that Chronic traumatic encephalopathy has become associated with professional American football. Also cyclists who died after a race because of debilitating injuries suffered during a race are included as well. The amount of time that elapsed between the injury and the death seems somewhat immaterial.
- I think it needs to be List of cyclists who died in cycling racing-related incidents or List of racing cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents. There must have been notable people who died in road cycling accidents not related to racing and who are not on this list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting cycling in the title makes sense. Shearonink (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted the entry of Tim Johnson/coach who was killed during a race by a freak accident with a motorcycle but was not a cyclist per se.
- How did I find them? Actually, I mostly didn't, I think predominantly other people did and I would then fix the entries up. Because of cycling's sprawling nature - European, 1890s, American, Brazil, South America, amateur, Olympic, professional teams, track cycling, motorcycle-assisted racing, road racing, marathon cycling, etc., etc. its (in my opinion) really poor record-keeping - it is simply not possible for these names to have been listed in some governing body like a University's website or alumni association. For instance, in the course of improving the List I removed many entries from cycling's early days, say the 1890s into the 1930s, because no records could be found that backed up almost any facts about them, including their death or manner of death.
- So then I come to the somewhat-combined issues of the inclusion criteria coupled with FLC's criteria 3a:
- (3a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- (3a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- With the title being changed I think that in and of itself helps to define the parameters for inclusion a little more succinctly but I am open to hashing out whatever the inclusion criteria could be, I just need to think on it a little bit more and test out some text to see what fulfills the needs of the article and the needs of the criteria.
- If I understand correctly, The Rambling Man is saying that nominators are not required to prove that all major items are covered because that would rule out many lists which should qualify for FL. I am happy to accept that and strike my oppose on the ground that it is the wording of the criteria which is at fault. It should be something like "providing at least all of the major items, although the nominator shall not be required to prove this if there are no reliable sources which are comprehensive". BTW I do not want to get involved with changing the criteria.
- Thanks for changing your mind about that. Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks The Rambling Man, but my ping was not about the hatnote. It was about the point above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you could absolutely prove it for such incomplete lists. But as long as the community consensus agrees that enough has been done to incorporate the major items, that should be enough. After all, it's the community's decision really. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One last thought...I'll confess, I am feeling a little blindsided here. None of these issues were brought up in the previous FLC. These are valid concerns it's just that each time I have submitted this List to FLC something completely new has come up. I'll do my best to work with interested editors/commentators and to hopefully improve the List to being a FL according to the FLC criteria. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- One last point is that in some cases you only provide a location or even just a reference. I do not think this is adequate for FL. If details of the cause of death are not available, the cyclist should not be in the list. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give maybe one example of this inadequacy that you're referring to? In your opinion, what details must/should/ought to be present to satisfy the FL criteria? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Jules Orieggia "Died during a stayers race at the Marseille velodrome". No cause of death given. 2. Josef Schwarzer "Düsseldorf track" Ditto. 3. Ernst Wolf [63]. No details at all.
- It has just occurred to me that you include motorcycle pacemakers, so not only cyclists. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The pacemakers are included because they were often cyclists as well plus the pacemaker & the cyclist were considered a team.
- So far as I can tell, the names that are being commented upon as lacking detailed info on their deaths are as follows:
- Jules Orieggia/1904, Josef Schwarzer/1907,
Ernst Wolf/1907, Fritz Theile/1911, Hans Bachmann/1913, Hans Lange/1913, August Kraft/1913, Max Hansen/1913, Max Bauer1917, Louis Darragon/1918, Hans Schneider/1920, Emanuel Kudela/1920, Franz Krupkat/1927, Emil Richli/1934, Stefan Veger/1936, Karl Kaminski/1978, Emilio Ravasio/1986,Saúl Morales/2000This entry has gotten more text an additional reference. Shearonink (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]Ernst Wolf/1907Wolf's notes have been fleshed out. Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Jules Orieggia/1904, Josef Schwarzer/1907,
- I think I have just found reliable info for Morales (aka Saúl Morales Corral) but for the 1904-1934 deaths I am not sure it is possible. Besides anything else (like the lack of a central cycling database or overarching cycling organization), I would think that the records of at least some of the 1904-ca1918 deaths (especially of German cyclists) would have been possibly destroyed by the 2 World Wars since ( the division of Germany post WWII), and for the ca.1918-1930s deaths, well WWII happened plus Germany being divided. I don't know - that's all I got. If more detailed information exists for these men I have been unable to find it, and when some of the fabulous German editors with an interest in cycling have happened by they seem to also have been unable to find any more than what is in the article now. Many of the entries on the German cyclists especially the early ones from the 1890s until the 1930s - were found in the stacks/archives of (I think?) the German State Library and the facts are as the editor found them. It seems the negative that is being applied in the comments is because of the abundance of information for some of the individuals, so then the scarcity of information for others stands out but should all the names be equal in their scarcity? The deaths of the scarce-info bunch occurred, they occurred on a track, they occurred during a race. I am not sure that each parameter needs to be equal in its information. I think it is fair to point out that there are other FLs that do not treat their various entries' related parameters exactly the same, for instance List of films of the Dutch East Indies has parameters that are marked "Unknown", List of roller coaster rankings has N/A parameters, List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication has entries whose Notes sections are empty...
- And Karl Kaminski, who died in 1978. Well, the List could state he died when he was hit by a truck during training but my source for that statement is the (translated) German Wikipedia article on Kaminski:
- On October 7, 1978, he fell on the Alfred Rosch arena in Leipzig after a puncture and died the following day in the hospital. He was the last stayer to have been killed in an accident on a German cycle track.
- but that information is not sourced at that article and I have been unable to find any published info that backs up the statement. So should individual entries be stripped out of the List because other cyclists have more information? I think that at one time Location of death and additional information was possibly called Notes but am not sure that changing the title of the section would be an improvement but am open to suggestions.
- Dudley Miles and The Rambling Man - Thanks to both for all your comments. Shearonink (talk) 06:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be further information such as how Ernst Wolf died on the German list.
- Ernst Wolf's entry has been added to. Thanks for that. Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure of the rules but I think the nominator should have checked all references, or know that someone reliable has checked them. Some, such as Hans Bachmann with "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 12/1913, p. 7. Berlin, Verlag Rad-Welt." do not look as if you could have checked them. I suggest that you compare any references you cannot check with the German list, add a note which refs you are relying on the German article for, and delete any names which are not satisfactorily referenced in the German list. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I assumed good faith on the part of the editor who provided the Sport-Album der Rad-Welt references from their library archives, the same way I would assume a book reference is valid that has been provided but that I do not have physical access to. Of course I could not check them, the sources reside in a different country, are written in a different language, and are in the stacks or archives of a library so are not available for lending. Also, I am not aware of a guideline, policy, part of the WP-MOS etc that states we cannot accept reliable references that are written in a language other than English.
- Regarding your suggestion that we check the Eng WP's List against the German WP List, the same editor who worked with me on improving the List ca. 2013 and who provided all the Sport-Album referencing here also has done much of the editing on the German WP's List. She has not edited here since 2014 but I will attempt tp get in touch and see if she has any additional input. Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. When you said that most of the entries had been added by other editors I got the impression that they were people you do not know. If it is an editor you have worked with, that is of course different. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah ok...when I said entries I was referring to the cyclists' names themselves. Take a look at the List when I started editing it plus often when names have been added by drive-by editors, the references have been missing or haven't been the best. It's been a long, looooong slog to get this List to its present state, to getting at least one reliable reference concerning the death of every. single. cyclist. on the List. My German Wikipedia-friend was instrumental in fleshing out the early cyclists' entries, meaning the referenced information that verifies their existence, their cycling status, and their deaths insofar as any of that is possible. I did delete names/entries from the List that no references were found for. Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. When you said that most of the entries had been added by other editors I got the impression that they were people you do not know. If it is an editor you have worked with, that is of course different. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
- "part of cycling's historic record and memorializing culture" The ref appears to be for pacemakers, not for this statement.
- The ref is for what pacemakers are. The statement you mention goes to the core of the List - the matter of cyclists' deaths is simply part of the culture of the sport. The massive funerals, the competitions named for the deceased, the roadside memorials/pilgrimage site...all speak to the culture. That's it. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It still needs referencing and you do not need it here as it is covered in the fourth paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. I liked the phrase and it was part of the definition of the List but Ok - Deleted. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The ref is for what pacemakers are. The statement you mention goes to the core of the List - the matter of cyclists' deaths is simply part of the culture of the sport. The massive funerals, the competitions named for the deceased, the roadside memorials/pilgrimage site...all speak to the culture. That's it. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Related events and risks factor into cyclists' deaths." What does this mean? I would delete.
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "After the death of Andrey Kivilev in a crash during the 2003 Paris-Nice race the Union Cycliste Internationale instituted a mandatory helmet rule." This is unreferenced.
- I don't understand why this has been brought up a second time. This statement does not have to be referenced in the lead section, it is referenced within the List, see Ref #191/Velo News. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Collided with his pacer" I think it is better to stick to the spelling pacemaker.
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Died shortly after an accident at the Düsseldorf Germany track that happened when one of his tires went out." What does "tires went out" mean?
- Blew out/went flat in the course of/during a race? Adjusted for clarity. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Died of a fatal skull fracture suffered during the Berlin Six-Day race held in March" Why "in March" when it is in the date column?
- Because that year - unlike the usual way of these races - there were two SIx-Day Races held in Berlin. It came up during some talkpage discussions so it is important to make sure the reader understands which race is being referenced. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Finished race but then died on June 29, 1951" Suggest "Finished race but died the next day."
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "She died as a result of a single-bike crash when she hit a tree during the 2000 BMC Tour event in Arlington/Boston." I would delete "as a result of a single-bike crash".
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stabbed to death with a screwdriver during practice" I do not think this counts as a cycling related death.
- I'd rather keep it. Shearonink (talk)
- Why have sub-sections for periods (such as 1990 to 2000) in the training when you do not in the races?
- Because I wanted to. Because that's the way I edited it when I was converting the Plainlist to a Table-format. Is there a criteria reason for not having the separate sections? Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, perhaps the "During a race" section should be converted to decade-tables. Having one huge table for all of the racing cyclists/pacemakers' deaths during races in cycling's history might not be the best way to handle that mountain of information... Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fine with or without decade tables so long as you are consistent and have the same format in both tables. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been thinking about the During a race/training sections for quite a while. Even before I asked The Rambling Man for feedback in fall 2019/this past spring, ever since the first FLC. I personally liked the 2 different styles, I thought they were appropriate, it never occurred to me that they would or could be an issue but... I took into account what editors other than myself had said about the 2 sections being Plainlist/Table in this FLC and in the previous FLC information about the cyclists' being as accessible to readers as possible so I (finally - yes I *know*) converted the decades/Plainlist into the Table-format. So. You are saying that both sections must be identical in their appearance/construction. Shearonink (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that I think about it, perhaps the "During a race" section should be converted to decade-tables. Having one huge table for all of the racing cyclists/pacemakers' deaths during races in cycling's history might not be the best way to handle that mountain of information... Shearonink (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I wanted to. Because that's the way I edited it when I was converting the Plainlist to a Table-format. Is there a criteria reason for not having the separate sections? Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes 15 and 16 should be merged - although I do not know how to do that in the #tag:ref format.
- Done. Oh yeah...these two were doozys to figure out how to adjust....yikes, what FUN. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would delete Taylor as you say his death not certainly connected to cycling. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not proven to be connected to cycling just the same way that heart attacks are not proven to be connected to cycling but this was a man who competed at a world-class level and yet less than a year later he was dead of TB. I am loath to remove his name. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks fine apart from the different formats of the two tables. I think they should be the same but it is not a deal breaker. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all your work & attention to detail on this FLC. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not proven to be connected to cycling just the same way that heart attacks are not proven to be connected to cycling but this was a man who competed at a world-class level and yet less than a year later he was dead of TB. I am loath to remove his name. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possible title changes
[edit]Since various different possible titles have been mentioned above, I thought it would be useful to gather them all up in one place. In a list no less!
1:List of cyclists with a cycling-related death
- present title. Considered problematic because it is not specific enough. Runs afoul of 3a criteria. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2:List of people who died as a result of incidents connected with cycle racing
- This covers the subject/s but seems somewhat unwieldy. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like it would also cover people who died while watching from the sideline or driving a pace car. BD2412 T 16:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3:List of racing cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
- my favorite. Succinct, not too wordy, covers both during racing, during training, health issues following a crash, etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4:List of cyclists who died in cycling-related incidents
- descriptive but a little too broad in scope. Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycling racing-related incidents is a little unwieldy but seems to me the most accurate. It covers pacemakers and excludes spectators and racing cyclists killed in ordinary road accidents, neither of which appear to be covered. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be the most accurate but having two gerunds in a row "cycling racing'...might yes be unwieldy also perhaps hard to quickly?easily understand... Shearonink (talk) 09:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- List of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents - How about this version? the term racing comes before cyclists and can be taken to also describe pacemakers and then stating it is racing-related would cover during a race, while training, health issues like the rash of heart attacks, injuries that cyclists succumb to even if years later... Shearonink (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds fine. The Rambling Man & PresN - does this proposed title run afoul of any List-title conventions? Seems to be the most succinct & descriptive version we've come up with. Shearonink (talk) 22:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest going ahead with the move to the new name. It will be easier to make relevant comments on the article then. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't a pacemaker just another kind of cyclist in this context? BD2412 T 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sort of, but not really. They were members of the same cycling team. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. See Motor-paced racing, which should be linked to pacemakers in the first paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles It is linked in the first paragraph: As follows:
- Pacemakers were and are motorcyclists utilized in motor-paced racing, riding motorcycles in front of their teammates to provide an additional boost of speed to those cyclists via the resulting slipstreams.
- Pacemakers were and are [[Motor-paced racing#Pacing by motorcycle|motorcyclists]] utilized in [[Motor-paced racing|motor-paced racing]], riding motorcycles in front of their teammates to provide an additional boost of speed to those cyclists via the resulting [[Slipstream|slipstreams]].
- That is in the second paragraph. I think pacemakers should be linked to Motor-paced racing on the first mention in the first paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles - Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in the second paragraph. I think pacemakers should be linked to Motor-paced racing on the first mention in the first paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412 - I was advised that it made sense for the term to be defined in the lead section. In my memory the List has never made a distinction between the historic early racing pacemakers and their stayers (their cyclists), but for our readers who are unfamiliar with the different terms and keeping in mind inclusion criteria it would seem to make sense to define who/what they are and to include them in the title. There were quite a few who were killed on those early racing tracks. Shearonink (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed title:
- To editors Dudley Miles, BD2412, The Rambling Man, PresN and Chidgk1: I've been thinking a lot about what the title of this List should be, what reads better on the page, what is as simple as possible but covers the List's subject and its inclusion criteria (including heart conditions/heart attacks, deaths while training, deaths occurring after - sometimes long after - an accident but because of the accident, etc) and this last one is what I came up with. It has 18 syllables to the last/previous proposal's 21: List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents and in my opinion flows better. Unless there are objections I will move the List to the new title within the next few days. Shearonink (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am fine with that and will do a full review once the title change has gone through. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles - Done. Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We agreed on List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents. Why the change to a new name which is inferior in my opinion? This title would cover an incident in which a cyclist was involved in the death of a spectator. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See proposed title at the beginning of this subsection. My impression was that you had agreed to it by saying "I am fine with that...". Shearonink (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no separate entries for spectators in the List. Spectators' deaths are mentioned once in the List and that is in the Notes which explains the at least 47 deaths in cycling's early days did not include any people who were at an event to watch the racing (for instance, the 9 fans/bystanders who died in the terrible accident at the Friedenau track in 1909). Shearonink (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. It is my fault for not reading your proposal carefully enough and there is no point pursuing the name change further. I will do a full review in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See you then. Shearonink (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. It is my fault for not reading your proposal carefully enough and there is no point pursuing the name change further. I will do a full review in the next few days. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We agreed on List of cyclists and pacemakers who died in cycle racing-related incidents. Why the change to a new name which is inferior in my opinion? This title would cover an incident in which a cyclist was involved in the death of a spectator. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion
[edit]Let's say the title was changed to List of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents or something similar - that starts to take care of the inclusion criteria issues but not all. I was looking at other cycling FLs for guidance and came across List of Tour de France general classification winners. I was told at some point that FLs had been moving away from stating "This is a list of [the subject title]" or "List of [whatever] is [etc]" so in 2012 I changed the lead sentence from its then-version "List of" form:
- List of professional cyclists who died during a race documents the deaths of professional cyclists while participating in their sport, starting with the first verified deaths in the 1890s
to another version which has since morphed into the present statement. If the lead were changed to something along the lines of the following (plus moving the List to the associated/changed title) would that be enough to satisfy concerns regarding the inclusion criteria:
- This is a list of racing cyclists and pacemakers who died in racing-related incidents including racetrack accidents, health-related incidents, and incidents that happened during training. The first documented deaths of cyclists during competition or training date to the 1890s and early 1900s when the then recently-invented safety or two-wheel bicycle made cycling more popular to the masses,[1] but by 1929 at least 47 professional riders and pacemakers[Note 1] had died at velodromes in track cycling.[3][Note 2] A number of professionals and competitive amateurs have been killed in accidents with motorized vehicles while training on public roads in the past few decades and after the death of Andrey Kivilev in a crash during the 2003 Paris-Nice race the Union Cycliste Internationale instituted a mandatory helmet rule.
References
- ^ Herlihy, David V. (2004). Bicycle: The History. Yale University Press. p. 225. ISBN 0300120478. Retrieved September 9, 2019.
- ^ Opinion of Mr Advocate General Warner delivered on 24 October 1974. # B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale, Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie and Federación Española Ciclismo. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Utrecht – Netherlands. # Case 36–74. Walrave and Koch. Publications Office of the European Union. 2004. p. 3. Archived from the original on September 4, 2019. Retrieved September 4, 2019.
On the one hand one can describe such a race as one between teams each consisting of a man on a motorcycle, known as a 'pacemaker' or 'pacer', followed by one on a bicycle, known as the 'stayer'
- ^ Mangan, J.A., ed. (2002). Reformers, sport, modernizers: middle-class revolutionaries. European Sports History Review. Vol. 4. Psychology Press. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-7146-5244-3. Archived from the original on February 3, 2017. Retrieved September 24, 2016.
- ^ Mangan, J.A., ed. (2002). Reformers, sport, modernizers: middle-class revolutionaries. European Sports History Review. Vol. 4. Psychology Press. p. 101. ISBN 978-0-7146-5244-3.
References
- ^ "Pacemakers" in this sense were motorcyclists who rode motorcycles as a team mate in front of and for specific professional cyclists. These motorized vehicles provided an additional boost of speed to the cyclists behind them via their slipstreams.[2]
- ^ The total includes the professional pacemakers (14) and riders (33) but does not include injuries/deaths of bystanders. On page 101 Mangan recounts some details of the infamous 1909 Friedenau (Berlin) track accident with nine spectators being killed and 52 others injured.[4]
So. Would those changes or something similar satisfy the concerns about the List's inclusion criteria? Shearonink (talk) 20:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an informal ban on starting an article "This is a list. I suggest making the first paragraph a brief history of cycle racing, including an explanation of pacememakers in the main text, and when and why they ceased to be used. You can then go into deaths in the succeeding paragraphs. I would not use the Forbes report on most dangerous sport. It is not a reliable source, it does not report deaths and it does not report proportional figures. If people spend 100 times as long cycling as playing football then a comparison of raw numbers is meaningless. Your refs 7 and 8 are ambiguous whether they are talking about professional cycling and vague about comparing numbers participating in different sports. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Dudley Miles - Done. I've instituted your suggested changes. Let me know what you think. Shearonink (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion of section headings and templates
[edit]I have no problem with the two styles of lists. I do find odd the missing time period 1929-1993, and then the odd splits of 1994-2000 followed by a partial decade (2010-2018) and then 2020-present, omitting the single year 2019. The Template:Expand list leaves such a pathetically small notation, and placed at the top of the page (prior to the lede and table of contents) makes it so inconspicuous as to be useless to the lists themselves. I would suggest you use more decade-friendly section headings and use Template:Dynamic list at the top of each section (alerting the reader that there may well be missing entries). Maybe try these brackets: 1900-1989, 1990-2009, 2010-2019, 2020-present... or 1900-1990, 1991-2010, 2011-present (changing later to 2011-2020, 2021-present). Normal Op (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Normal Op Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
- Done - Shearonink (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from ChrisTheDude
[edit]Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*As I mentioned when this was nominated before, I can't see any compelling reason for the two lists not to be in the same format. To my eyes it looks messy, and means that the data is inconsistent. For example, many of the entries in the second section list a country after the date. I presume this is their nationality rather than the country where they died (as some of them died in different countries), although it's not specified. But why does one listing have the lengthy and detailed "Aberaman, Rhondda Cynon Taff, Wales, United Kingdom" rather than simply a country name? And why do some not have this info at all when it is clearly known/available? Putting the data into actual columns would ensure that is consistent for all entries..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of questions:
|
Sections & Tables & Plainlists...oh MY
[edit]- Done. Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything else? Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Medusa
[edit]- The table has |scope="row". Activate the scope by adding !scope="row"
- Sorry, but what does that mean, what is the code not doing in its present state. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- during competition that year → during the competition
- during competition is not incorrect, it does not need the article to define the word. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- commentator wrote → wrote: "
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Died on the 22nd from aftereffects of crash, → of the crash
- Article not needed but ok. Done Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- during a stayers race at the Marseille velodrome → is it Marseille Vélodrome?
- It is rendered as velodrome of Marseille in the one source and not mentioned in the other so?...I don't know. I don't think so, I can only go by what the sources say. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- damage from the fall, as afterwards he → as afterwards,
- Not done - comma seems superfluous there. It's a continuous thought. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- track with his brother Otto as pacemaker → as a pacemaker
- Article not needed to define the word. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnson was riding on the Princes Highway, when → Princes Highway when
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1943 at the age of 55 he → the age of 55, he
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The death rates for cyclists in general differs → cyclists, in general, differ from
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- was also winner of the 1901 New York Madison → was also the winner of
- Not done. I don't think "the" is needed here. I suppose the general style is a summary style, dispensing with articles such as "a" & "the" - it does not seem to me to be incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In his last year of competition he placed → competition, he placed
- Is a comma actually needed there? Is it ungrammatical to not have a comma? Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The table kind of looks flat. Is there something to enhance it?
- ?Table looks flat... I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done CAPTAIN MEDUSA When I did the ! row changes that automatically changed the background color of the Name column/cells, so the darker iteration is the default. So now more flat-looking table. Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ?Table looks flat... I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's it for now. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. Shearonink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA Was there anything else? I responded to your Comments but have some questions about the scope coding & the "table kind of looks flat". Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, see List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication's table. Adding a darker theme to the name will probably do it. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at some other similar Featured Lists (including List of HIV-positive people and List of people with brain tumors). Having a single cell be a different color seems to be a style-decision for "List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication" as opposed to an FL criteria/guideline/policy but I'll play around with switching out the background color on the name cell/column to see if the change seems like a good fit - I was thinking the photos editors have been able to find of the various cyclists for this FLC would have been enough to add visual interest? but maybe not.
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA The one dark column in the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication you mentioned is apparently the default. I have been unable to figure out how to make a single column have a single background color all the way down throughout the Table. Any ideas or useful Help pages etc so I could figure out how to make an entire column have one bg color? If you can show me an example of the code that is the most useful way for me to learn - sometimes the Help pages aren't the most helpful for non-coders like myself. If you know how to do it please do not change the code in the List yourself, I'm like a toddler who says "Me do!" - that's the best way for me to learn (no matter how painful it might be for the teacher). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Shearonink, This edit might help you [10]. Also, I think that moving images after the name will make it look better. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Thanks for the dummy edit, but, Ok, yes I knew that I could change all 119 Name cells individually in the During a Race Table, but you are telling me there is NO way to change a Column's background color en masse... I have to go through the entire Table and change the background color of each individual "Name" cell? Shearonink (talk)
- And just making sure I understand what you're stating here - You are saying that the Photo cells & Column and the Name Cells & Column must be switched. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done The Name column & the Image column have been switched on the During Table. All the Images & Names have also been adjusted accordingly. I think this massive change satisfies your concerns about "flatness". Am taking a break, will get to the Training tables sometime later this week. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Shearonink, You could use the Search and replace tool. Use this format Search: | scope="row" Replace: ! scope="row" then click on replace all. Make sure to edit sections only. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Ok, yes I could but I am thinking that I am not sure I want to change the background color of that column (actually individual cells). This seems to be an esthetic decision/design choice/personal preference that isn't part of the FL criteria. I'll have to think about it but feel free to convince me. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And just making sure I understand what you're stating here - You are saying that the Photo cells & Column and the Name Cells & Column must be switched. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Thanks for the dummy edit, but, Ok, yes I knew that I could change all 119 Name cells individually in the During a Race Table, but you are telling me there is NO way to change a Column's background color en masse... I have to go through the entire Table and change the background color of each individual "Name" cell? Shearonink (talk)
- Shearonink, This edit might help you [10]. Also, I think that moving images after the name will make it look better. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA The one dark column in the List of deaths from drug overdose and intoxication you mentioned is apparently the default. I have been unable to figure out how to make a single column have a single background color all the way down throughout the Table. Any ideas or useful Help pages etc so I could figure out how to make an entire column have one bg color? If you can show me an example of the code that is the most useful way for me to learn - sometimes the Help pages aren't the most helpful for non-coders like myself. If you know how to do it please do not change the code in the List yourself, I'm like a toddler who says "Me do!" - that's the best way for me to learn (no matter how painful it might be for the teacher). Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the scope/code issue, where you wrote
- The table has |scope="row". Activate the scope by adding !scope="row"
- I don't understand what is wrong with the way it is now, need an explanation/links to the appropriate MOS-Table URLs so I can fix it and know for next time. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables are not my strong suit around here. Please, I need you to explain what is wrong with the present coding. I need to understand why I need to change it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA - Could I get some guidance on the table has |scope="row". Activate the scope by adding !scope="row" issue? As I have said above I do not understand what you are asking here and I do not understand the why either. I need to know both please. Shearonink (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shearonink: it means that the row should start with "!scope=row", not "|scope=row". As it stands, a screen reader will not be able to pick up the scopes. Should be able to quickly do it with a search-and-replace I would have thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude Thanks for the explanation - the "why" is a big help. So it means that every line with "|scope=row" needs to instead have "!scope=row", correct? (and yeah, TG for Search & Replace). Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. CAPTAIN MEDUSA & ChrisTheDude - was there anything else? Shearonink (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA The !row correction took care of your concern about the Flat-table issue/Name column not being a darker color - is there anything else? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tables are not my strong suit around here. Please, I need you to explain what is wrong with the present coding. I need to understand why I need to change it. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments.
- Unreliable sources.
- Welford Road Cemetery Leicester
- Welford Road Cemetery's website has gone dark, I doubt that it was unreliable but it is in addition to other refs so it's been removed. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- stuyfssportverhalen.wordpress.com and stuyfssportverhalen.com (clearly says its a blog site)
- Re:stuyfssportverhalen - Just because a source is a blog doesn't necessarily mean that it is in and of itself unreliable. Per WP:RSSELF - Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications & per Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#Self-published doesn't mean a source is automatically invalid references to a blog/website written by an expert are allowed, please see André Stuyfersant's writing bio André Stuyfersant has authored three books - see wielersportboeken website Mr. Stuyfersant was published in the Stadsblad newspaper. His output at the Stadsblad seems inaccessible online, so I've relied on his publications in his blog. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- cyclehistory.wordpress.com → blog site
- Re:cyclehistory.wordpress.com - is not clearly unreliable but I'll remove it since it is just an additional ref for the differing dates of Jimmy Michael's debilitating accident. Mr Cripps' work seems scrupulous to me but ok. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Other comments.
- In references there are sites like www.nytimes.com. The New York Times. → It should just be NYT in italics.
- What is this rule/guideline for an italicized "NYT". If the publisher/website is an entity like The New York Times and they have a Wikipedia article isn't that supposed to be Wikilinked? Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some references are missing site names.
- Site names? Do you mean the website as in "website="? I have to take a break, your comment isn't making complete sense to me at the moment, will take another look sometime within the next few days. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean in this instance. (Policies/guidelines/examples are always a help to me in cases like this.) Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is too much shouting in ref name.
- I think you are mainly referring to the Raul Motos ref - Ref #145 - I was preserving the original appearance of the article's title concern about diacritics but those seem to disappear in the caps anyway so I've converted the title to This Appearance. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In website name remove .com .de etc and correctly format them
- Done I think it's done...in a late night of editing I converted all of the websites to .com etc - made more work for myself. I admit this rule of giving the name of the website and not actual URL seems kind of odd to me...the website is the .com, the .de, etc. I puzzled over how to adjust the dw.com website and finally gave up - not supposed to put publisher and website if the same but dw.com is not the same as the broadcaster and...anyway, decided to leave it as Deutsche Wells. All now fixed. I think. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will check the rest after these have been resolved. Sorry about the late response I have been quite busy. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some resolved, some maybe not. Let me know what your thoughts are on the Stuyfssportverhalen website/blog as a source. Shearonink (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Austen, Ian (September 24, 2011). "Sport Grows, and Grows More Perilous". The New York Times. Retrieved June 23, 2020.
- OH. You're not saying it should be literally NYT in italics but that all mentions of The New York Times as the website=/publisher= etcneeds to be rendered as [[The New York Times]]. So for New York Times refs, no publisher, just a Wikilink for the website. Ok. Done Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Background: The four fatalities at the Giro d'Italia". Monsters & Critics. May 10, 2011. Archived from the original on October 15, 2012. Retrieved September 25, 2011.
- Done Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be like that. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through and checked all the website='s, etc. - think I caught all the errant .com's, the .de's, the nl's, etc. - they should be all gone at this point. I hope. Shearonink (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from ChrisTheDude
[edit]- I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead, both of which are only two sentences
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bert Harris's entry amusingly says he was participating in a face :-)
- Done F & R are so close together...operator error please proceed... Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "in which also his brother Marcel participated" => "in which his brother Marcel also participated"
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Olympia track Berlin" => "Olympia track, Berlin"
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Raul Motos entry has a stray <
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Simpson entry should have a comma after hospital, not a full stop
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Goffin crashes and, after spending six days in a coma, dies from his injuries" - randomly written in the present tense when everything else is in the past tense
- Done Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a random mixture of "Road cyclist" and "road cyclist" in the competitive status column - be consistent
- Will get to that and the rest in another pass. Life is interfering with my Wikipedia-ing atm. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Will get to that and the rest in another pass. Life is interfering with my Wikipedia-ing atm. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Ben Sonntag entry, 2 should be written as a word
- Done Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 9 - "See "Opgevouwen op zijn fietsje de dood tegemoet" (Folded to death on his bike)." - what is this? A book? A newspaper article? Something else entirely?
- It is a reference in the List, Reference # 69. I thought it was important to mention that the date of the accident/death varies in different sources. Perhaps it could be rendered more elegantly, but I did the best I could with what I was able to find. Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a reference then make it a proper reference at that point in the list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted that Note. That reference exists further on and is the only one I could find that had a different date. If readers read that source then they'll see there's a discrepancy but I doubt anyone cares but me. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a reference then make it a proper reference at that point in the list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a reference in the List, Reference # 69. I thought it was important to mention that the date of the accident/death varies in different sources. Perhaps it could be rendered more elegantly, but I did the best I could with what I was able to find. Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 14 is missing a space in "Motorcyclist(Volume 71)" and also in "of a 'A Thousand Laps'(150 km)"
- Done for Motorcyclist - It's not [Title](Volume)? Ok, if you say so. Seems to fit for the Thousand Laps. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 16 should have 2 written as a word
- Done Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think note 25 is needed personally. If it is kept then "As the template at the beginning of the List says "This is a dynamic list and may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries."" definitely needs to go, reiterating what the template says is not appropriate at all.
- The only reason I put this Note in is because editors are bringing it up from time to time and the gap has come up in the FLCs, you know...along the lines of "Why is there a gap?!? I'd like to forestall any future drive-by editing or Commenting that Stuff Must Be Missing Because of The Gap. Have adjusted it a bit - see what you think. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note 27 has two full stops at the end, and "(See German Wikipedia article: Edouard Taylor)" is not appropriate, as what seems to be going on here is that you are using another Wikipedia article as a source, which is not permitted.
- I am not using that German Wikipedia article as a source, I am pointing interested readers to it as a See Also - that isn't clear from the "See German Wikipedia" phrase? I couldn't figure out any other way to let English Wikipedia readers know that the German Wikipedia has an article on the man. I can delete that complete "See..." phrase if it is truly needful. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems a shame to not let readers know that there is an article in another Wikipedia about the man but ok - deleted the link from the List. Also deleted any references to tuberculosis since the German Wikipedia article is the only mention online that I could find about that specific illness. So I guess it's not clear exactly how Edouard Taylor died, and he is mentioned in Andrew Ritchie's Early Bicycles and the Quest for Speed: A History, 1868-1903, in a list of cycling-accident deaths along with Elkes, Gornemann, Kaser, Dangla, et al. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be deleted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not using that German Wikipedia article as a source, I am pointing interested readers to it as a See Also - that isn't clear from the "See German Wikipedia" phrase? I couldn't figure out any other way to let English Wikipedia readers know that the German Wikipedia has an article on the man. I can delete that complete "See..." phrase if it is truly needful. Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 47 - ""Walter Rutt quote (undated cutting)". Journal, Fellowship of Cycling Old-Timers.. From Jimmy Michael" - what is this?
- What is says it is. An undated cutting that is referenced in the Jimmy Michael article:
- Walter Rutt, the world sprint champion in 1913, said Michael began drinking because of an "everlasting headache" which followed his fall at Berlin.."<ref>Journal, Fellowship of Cycling Old-Timers, undated cutting quoting Walter Rutt</ref> Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The full and correctly formatted reference needs to be in this article. Essentially at the moment you are saying "there's a reference for that but you need to go and look in another article for it", which isn't permitted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have access to this undated cutting that was republished in a past edition of the "Fellowship of Cycling Old Timers'" magazine so it's been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 10:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The full and correctly formatted reference needs to be in this article. Essentially at the moment you are saying "there's a reference for that but you need to go and look in another article for it", which isn't permitted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter Rutt, the world sprint champion in 1913, said Michael began drinking because of an "everlasting headache" which followed his fall at Berlin.."<ref>Journal, Fellowship of Cycling Old-Timers, undated cutting quoting Walter Rutt</ref> Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is says it is. An undated cutting that is referenced in the Jimmy Michael article:
- Refs 206, 280 and 296 do not list what the work/publisher is
- Done Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 241 has a broken parameter
- Done Shearonink (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Think that's it on the latest pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude - Thanks for all your attention to the List. It has been such a massive undertaking and in the early days, especially, had attention from many different quarters - bits have obviously escaped me since I have become so familiar with the subjects & sources. Will continue on later this weekend. Hope it's ok that I adjusted your punctuation/code for this section to be a sub-header instead, it helps me keep my responses clear. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a break, I'm sure there will be more. Goodnight, Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude Any more passes? Stuff that needs to be fixed? Is everything ok? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed a few typos, removed a lot of unnecessary full stops and made a couple of other tweaks. Now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Those full stops cause me so much grief! Sorry there were so many of them, thank you for fixing them all - Muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed a few typos, removed a lot of unnecessary full stops and made a couple of other tweaks. Now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude Any more passes? Stuff that needs to be fixed? Is everything ok? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 06:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking a break, I'm sure there will be more. Goodnight, Shearonink (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude - Thanks for all your attention to the List. It has been such a massive undertaking and in the early days, especially, had attention from many different quarters - bits have obviously escaped me since I have become so familiar with the subjects & sources. Will continue on later this weekend. Hope it's ok that I adjusted your punctuation/code for this section to be a sub-header instead, it helps me keep my responses clear. Shearonink (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review-comments and for helping me to improve this List. Shearonink (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Wow this is some list, good work so far! This source review will likely take some time, so I may do it in chunks. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 needs an ISBN 13 (use the converter)
Yale University Press,Cyclingnews.com,University of California Press,American Journal of Sports Medicine,The Argus,BBC,Taylor & Francis,New York World,Random House,The Telegraph,The AgeandThe Independentneed links
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cyclingnews.com - Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yale U Press - Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- University of California Press - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- American Journal of Sports Med - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Argus - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Taylor & Francis - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The World/New York World - Done. But a word...The newspaper was technically called The World on its masthead. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Random House - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Age - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Independent - Done. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why California Digital Newspaper Collection/University of California Riverside listed twice in ref 19?
- Because the website & the publisher seemed to me to be one and the same. The original newspaper was The San Francisco Call but that is not the exact source that is available online for verifiability. What to do... Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for ref 36? (Horman 2011)
- Ref 42 is formatted differently then 19, although I think they have the same publishers
- Done They have been brought into agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes 43 a reliable source?
- Babylon Wales is a blog that was published 2006-2014, written by Anthony Brockway a writer who has also been published in other venues/magazines - Planet Magazine/planetmagazine.org.uk, New Welsh Review/https://newwelshreview.com/, etc. This particular ref gives the details on the poster of Jimmy Michael that was drawn by Toulouse-Lautrec. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Mangan ref 45 should have "pp. 130–131" not "p.130, 131"
- Ref 26 should have a space between the p. and 127 – that is the standard at least
- Done Looks a little weird but done. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 47 McKay needs a publisher
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes ref 53 reliable?
- It is true that www.cycling4fans.de was started in 2001 as a cycling fan site but has since developed into a cycling archives/history resource. Any possible submissions are vetted by the editorial staff. This particular column is about Willy Schmitter, a cyclist who died in 1905 and the cyclingfans article cites as its source the 1906 edition of the Sport-Album der Radwelt, 4th year. Information about early cyclists is very difficult to get at, the Sports-Album is often the only remaining source of information and so far as I can tell is probably only available in the stacks of research libraries in Germany. In my opinion it is reliable. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - The site is used extensively throughout WIkipedia. Shearonink (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that www.cycling4fans.de was started in 2001 as a cycling fan site but has since developed into a cycling archives/history resource. Any possible submissions are vetted by the editorial staff. This particular column is about Willy Schmitter, a cyclist who died in 1905 and the cyclingfans article cites as its source the 1906 edition of the Sport-Album der Radwelt, 4th year. Information about early cyclists is very difficult to get at, the Sports-Album is often the only remaining source of information and so far as I can tell is probably only available in the stacks of research libraries in Germany. In my opinion it is reliable. Shearonink (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for ref 58
- Done. Boy THAT was hard to find...it's not printed on any copy I could find but I found a publisher cited elsewhere on the Internet Archive. Shearonink (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sport-Album der Rad-Welt citations are inconsistent, for example:
- Ref 59 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 6/1907..."
- Ref 63 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, vol. 7, 1908..."
- Ref 69 "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 8/1909..."
- I would recommend capitalizing to "Vol" and using the format of ref 63, like: "Sport-Album der Rad-Welt, Vol. 7, 1908..." for all of them.
- Done They have all been brought into agreement with each other. Shearonink (talk) 07:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 70 and 72 missing publisher
- Done Ref #70 & #72 - added publisher/s. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "page 56 " mean in ref 79?
- I don't know. That is a ref that was added by another editor who has access to the archives/stacks at a major library in Germany. I have an inquiry into them now - I'll let you know when I know. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted the symbol. That was supposed to be just "56" by itself. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "f. Frankfort." mean in ref 12?
- Das Stahlrad was a major German cycling magazine but I am not sure what "f. Frankfort" is supposed to mean. Am checking. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Using f. in a reference is a common German shorthand way of stating "and the following (pages)" but since I do not have Das Stahlrad in front of me (found out it means "The Steelbike") to see how many the following page/s are, that ref will be rendered without the f. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Das Stahlrad was a major German cycling magazine but I am not sure what "f. Frankfort" is supposed to mean. Am checking. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 89 should be pp. 66–67 (make sure its an em – dash)
- Done - Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is ref 93 from?
- Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport was a weekly cycling magazine publishedfrom 1921 to 1935. I have filled it out with whatever information I could find, I do not have direct access to these volumes. Shearonink (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 97 "See Rennbahn Oerlikon – 100 Jahre Faszination Radsport by Peter Schnyder, Page 150" you need a publisher and ISBN or something. You already have another ref for this entry so I wonder if this one is even necessary. (if you do remove it I would do so after going through this batch of comments so when I refer to a reference it is the same one, if that makes sense)
- Done. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Ref 99 ""Kruger". Illustrated Cycling. July 24, 1931." can I get an author or access date or link or anything?
- Well, again, the problem is that this is a reference in a different language published before ISBNs were established. I added the ref myself in 2012, but I think the information was quoted in another reference complete with attribution. Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport (or "Illustrated Cycling") was a German cycling magazine published from 1921 until 1935 and is used as a reference in a handful or articles about historic cycling in the English Wikipedia and extensively so in the German Wikipedia see this and this. There's even an article about it in the German Wikipedia, see de:Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport. One thing to be aware of is that the magazine's title is rendered in two different forms, as Illustrierter Radrennsport and as Illustrierter Radrenn-Sport. Shearonink (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- can ref 103 get an ISBN OCLC or something?
- The book doesn't have an ISBN since it was published in 1950 and apparently never had a second or third printing - ISBNs only came into use after 1970. I filled out the reference as much as I could - hopefully that will be enogh.
- Why does ref 108 say "1936 edition" and ref 109 simply says "1937"?
- Done. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does ref 112 say "Melbourne, Victoria. December 10, 1938. p. 4 Edition: Edition1." isn't "Melbourne, Victoria. December 10, 1938. p. 4 Edition: 1." enough?
- Done It did look somewhat odd but that is one of the citation forms put forth at the source and that is how it is rendered elsewhere. I take the preciseness of the Edition to mean to mean that there could be more than one edition of a paper put out in a day - the morning edition (Edition 1) and the evening edition (Edition 2). I've adjusted it now Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the ISBN for ref 113 (Brisson, Jean-Pascal) correct? 979 is unusual, not even sure it's possible
- Done Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes ref 118 reliable?
- Refs 94, 118, and 129 are all sourced from Mémoire du Cyclisme, a database of cycling news & history that has been around since 1997. It has an editorial staff and, though it does have fan forums, the information presented to the public in article-form is overseen and vetted by that editorial staff. It is cited by other references as a source - Cycling Ranking, Taylor & Francis books. The site itself is cited over 2000 times in different Wikipedia articles about cycling. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ISBN for 127?
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for 129?
- Done Also, see the above comment about this ref. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher/website/work for 140?
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher for 142?
- 142 is proving to be problematic, I'll probably have to delete it later. Shearonink (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Got to ref 155, more later Aza24 (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking over the sources up to 155. Only 145 to go...eek! Shearonink (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your diligent work and responses so far, I recognize this can be a tedious process, especially with this many references. Looking through the above everything seems to be addressed and I'm happy with the reliability explanations. The only suggestion I would make before going through the rest is that I've heard of a guideline for when the website and publisher are the same, or closely related you don't need both (e.g. having California Digital Newspaper Collection at University of California Riverside twice) usually I see this with people avoiding |website=New York Times |publisher=New York Times Company, but either way is fine, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Going through the rest now, 145 more... "eek" indeed :) Aza24 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A "|language = italian" for ref 154 would be nice
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Date, publisher and "|language = french" for ref 159
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- publisher for ref 160?
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- link for ref 162 is broken (for me at leas)
- I will delete #162 when the review is done. Unfortunately it looks like the site has gone dark and also something went wrong with the Wayback Machine's archiving. What a pity. Shearonink (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Ref#162 has been deleted. Shearonink (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "|language=spanish" for ref 163?
- Done Spanish actually. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 171 needs Portuguese language marker, author and publishing date (those two look like they're at the bottom of the page)
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 172 needs date
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 173 needs author and ate
- Done. The date was already in the ref. The author was "Agence France Presse, which is/was akin to Associated Press or United Press Syndicate, so I rendered the author as "Staff". Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- looks like ref 99 has an error
- Done. Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 02:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- date for ref 205
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- language=italian for ref 206?
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 214 should be Snowdon Sports and needs date
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 03:23, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 215 needs date (and maybe author – although this author name seems to be their initials so perhaps not)
- Date is already there. I tried to get at who "JB" was, but that info is not searchable through velo-club.net's archives. I think I will leave it blank. sinceI cannot attach a name to the initials. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 217 needs author
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 219 needs date, looks like in this case it's the same as the archive and retrieval one
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 229 missing author and date
- ref 230 missing date, also looks like in this case it's the same as the archive and retrieval one
- ref 231 missing date (quite a few cycling news ones are, refs 221, 223, 224)
- 221Done
- 223Done
- 224Done
- 231Done Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- date and "language=spanish" for ref 227
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- date for ref 241
- Done The date was there but I did add "Staff" as author. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Shoot! I meant to get through all of them in one swoop, got to ref 245 but I have to go... will be back in a little bit to finish up, you're so close! - Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 268 needs author and date
- ref 277 wrong date?
- Done. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 291 missing author
- Done. Actually, I had to completely overhaul that ref - the author was there but the cite form wasn't a WP-standard. Shearonink (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 292 needs "language=spanish"
- Done language =Italian Staff author. Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ref 294 needs author
- Done. Fixed Shearonink (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's it for me, to help with the process I'll go through more myself to try and link the remaining unlinked publishers. Aza24 (talk) 23:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aza24... Done. Should be all good to go. Please at least do a spot-check of my work to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thank you for all your efforts on this review. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shearonink: good work! I spot checked some like you asked and everything looked fine. Thanks for your cooperation on this list with a lot of sources! (btw don't forget to delete 162) Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aza24... Done. Should be all good to go. Please at least do a spot-check of my work to make sure I didn't miss anything. Thank you for all your efforts on this review. Shearonink (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [11].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have 21 other county lists as FLs, hope this one, being up to date with additional information, can make it 22! Should be pretty straightforward but there may be other information that could be mentioned or revised. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some thoughts
- I would use either the labeled map or the static map
- Why? The linked one only has space for abbreviations (and are not part of the image itself) so the full labels are also appropriate. Mobile and desktop users may prefer one or the other.
- FIPS codes haven't been used for more than a decade, I would drop them0
- Every one of the links redirect to a page with the actual county name in it like this
- The census does still use FIPS county codes, the census links are still appropriate.
- Needs a better source for the county seats and establishment date.
- Why? NACo is a reliable source, and general sources are allowed so only one is needed at the header, adequately covering all entries; it links to all counties.
- Why is there a citation to HistoryLink for etymology when each one is cited to a book?
- I removed the general link.
- The paragraphs of the leade are short and choppy. Several can be merged.
- I combined the three relating to government.
- I would use either the labeled map or the static map
- --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Reywas92Talk 19:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive by comments I may have time to do a full review in the near future, but for now I do have to agree with the previous poster, that the FIPS codes are not very useful for the wikipedian reader, and I would suggest removing them. Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is built into Template:Countytabletop/Template:Countyrow and cannot be removed from just this page; I think it's best to keep this template for consistency across the 50 articles. It could be updated to use "ANSI Code" or "Census Code" but the Census still uses "FIPS" [12][13] and these data links are useful direct references to include. Tompw, you were involved in featuring a few of these long ago, any thoughts? I have also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The FIPS code column could be re-named "US Census page", which is a useful thing to link to (and avoids people wanting to add extra things to the main table). Use the FIPS code in the link - let the US Census website looks after the redirect. Tompw (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We should avoid using WP:EASTEREGG links. The FIPS code is fine as it is, since it does have niche uses (mostly for those using raw Census data for GIS or other kinds of data processing). It is also a useful unique identifier for each county in the country. SounderBruce 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The FIPS code column could be re-named "US Census page", which is a useful thing to link to (and avoids people wanting to add extra things to the main table). Use the FIPS code in the link - let the US Census website looks after the redirect. Tompw (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is built into Template:Countytabletop/Template:Countyrow and cannot be removed from just this page; I think it's best to keep this template for consistency across the 50 articles. It could be updated to use "ANSI Code" or "Census Code" but the Census still uses "FIPS" [12][13] and these data links are useful direct references to include. Tompw, you were involved in featuring a few of these long ago, any thoughts? I have also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
[edit]- The article name sounds odd to me as I would take Washington without qualification to mean Washington DC, but I assume it is OK in AmerEng.
- Yes, while it can get confusing to have two places with the name, DC does not have counties and disambiguation is not needed here
- 'See also' normally follows the main text.
- Hmm the hatnote was in every county list since creation but yes it doesn't need to be there, no dab.
- "Elections are nonpartisan in non-charter counties, but charter counties may choose to make some positions partisan," This implies that being nonpartisan is compulsory. Is it illegal for candidates to run for a party in non-charter counties?
- Correct, in a non-partisan election parties do not appear on the ballot.
- "though all elections are by top-two primary." How does this work when 3 to 5 commissioners are being elected?
- They are divided into districts and they run for separate seats, but it's actually a bit more complicated than I'd want to describe in this list (in non-charter counties, the top-two primary is by district to ensure some geographic representation, but the general election is at-large; charter counties can do their own thing but I think all are fully by district). I should add Government_of_the_State_of_Washington#Local_government to the to-do list.
- "Counties are not subdivided into minor civil divisions like townships; local government is only by incorporated cities and towns, and services in unincorporated areas are provided by the county." I do not understand this sentence. Does it mean that the county has no role in incorporated cities and towns?
- What services is the county responsible for?
- With both of these it's quite complicated and varies significantly by county and city. E.g. counties have sheriff departments that have jurisdiction everywhere but primarily serve unincorporated areas but also smaller cities that contract with them, while larger cities have their own police departments (see King County Sheriff's Office). My county, King, has a library system with branches everywhere except Seattle which has its own. There are county courts, but some cities also have a city court for minor infractions. Code and zoning laws are mostly only for unincorporated areas, as are the county parks and road services. Garbage services are for everywhere but Seattle. Then there's special purpose districts! Not as familiar with other counties but it's still inconsistent for the less-urbanized ones. I've revised that line to exclude that since I'm not sure how to accurately summarize it while being adequately informative but let me know your thoughts.
- I think you should say something, even if it's only "The services provided by counties vary but usually include..." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated. I intended this answer to apply to the prior comment too – yes, the county does have a role in cities and towns, though it's not the same between them and unincorporated areas. Reywas92Talk 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "King County, home to the state's largest city, Seattle, holds 29.58% of Washington's population (7,614,893 in 2019)" I was confused at first by this and took the figure as the population of King County. Maybe "Washington has a population of 7,614,893 (in 2019) and 29.58% live in King County, home to the state's largest city, Seattle." Also, in view of inevitable errors and changes in population, two decimal places (29.58%) is false precision.
- Revised
- In the infobox, you should specify that the figures in 'populations' and 'areas' are for the smallest and largest.
- Done
- The map shows the counties covering the whole state, including Indian reservations. Do the counties have juriscdiction over reservations? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes in that reservation residents vote for their county officials and the county provides services. Tribes have their own governments and police agencies, so I've added that as local government, good catch of my oversight. Jurisdiction can get complicated though: [14]. Thanks for your comments!
- See further comment above. There is one point you have not replied to. Also, the last paragraph of the lead seems too technical for the main text - perhaps move it to a note? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is discussed above, I think it's good to be more visible there rather than as the only note. Reywas92Talk 00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
[edit]Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
(WikiCup entry)
That's it, cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:14, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support once the comments below are addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Could use some climate information. Maybe as a section. Another possibility would be to put selected climate information into the table, so it could be sorted by warmer/colder or wetter/dryer places. Bot-generated climate charts and summaries can be found at ceb:Skamania_County other ceb.wikipedia articles. For counties that are missing a full chart in the ceb.wikipedia, at least a summary may still be included which is readable enough on Google translate. Anther possibility would be to browse the location articles in each county until you find one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Other county lists do not have climate tables or summaries, because they can vary wildly within the county themselves. In fact, the climate data at ceb.wikipedia should be removed for this reason. SounderBruce 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Full out climate charts for each county would be too much for the list. The ceb.wikipedia resources were not available the last time a list was proposed for FA. So this is new ground to tread here without precedent to follow. I am of the understanding that rainfall varies substantially between the eastern and western parts of the state; with a difference comparable to Oregon's, but more serious than most states. Some people may be looking for a quick way to sort counties by subregion and putting rainfall in a sortable table for the peak month or annual rainfall would allow that.
- Other county lists do not have climate tables or summaries, because they can vary wildly within the county themselves. In fact, the climate data at ceb.wikipedia should be removed for this reason. SounderBruce 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As for ceb.wikipedia bot related geographical articles, it is a problem because they are not individually curated. For example, they had the same island listed for three different counties in Wisconsin. Historically, the island has belonged to only one of these counties for well over 100 years. But because Google picks up Wikipedia--even a foreign one, Google was falsely reporting the county's ownership for ordinary searches. Yesterday I turned two of the articles into redirects for the correct one, and I'll see if Google improves or not.
- If Wikipedia has a Google liaison it would be good to see if they could get the search engine to automatically remove all of their geographical articles outside of the Philippines.
- The flip side is that even though it was bot generated, the climate information comes from NASA, and so it should still work just fine. It would be nice had ceb.wikipedia showed more restraint, but now that the monkey is out of the bag we might as well see if it can be any use. The county tables appear to be an average for the county and not the county seat, but don't take my word for it. I believe even counties without tables still have a paragraph of summary that should suffice. So we do not need to subjectively pick cities in a county.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Using climate data to provide a sortkey between regions is not an appropriate plan. None of this should be included in a general list of counties, and climate data for individual county articles needs to be discussed elsewhere. SounderBruce 06:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "needs to be discussed elsewhere" comment inspired me to write Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Proposal:_That_WMF_ask_Google_to_stop_indexing_certain_bot-generated_articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Using climate data to provide a sortkey between regions is not an appropriate plan. None of this should be included in a general list of counties, and climate data for individual county articles needs to be discussed elsewhere. SounderBruce 06:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The flip side is that even though it was bot generated, the climate information comes from NASA, and so it should still work just fine. It would be nice had ceb.wikipedia showed more restraint, but now that the monkey is out of the bag we might as well see if it can be any use. The county tables appear to be an average for the county and not the county seat, but don't take my word for it. I believe even counties without tables still have a paragraph of summary that should suffice. So we do not need to subjectively pick cities in a county.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. As Bruce said, there is no fact above others that should go in a table cell, nor would a table fit. Washington_(state)#Climate and specific city articles have the best coverage for this. Reywas92Talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with SounderBruce that climate info is not appropriate for this list. The scope of this list is political divisions within a state with typical and most commonly compared attributes associated with sub-state political divisions. Hwy43 (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hwy43
Full disclosure: this is my first time reviewing a counties in the US list and I have not looked to compare with the 21 other county FLs and the comments associated with their nominations. Further, I have only skimmed the above comments so pardon any redundancy.
- "There are/is..." is an awkward way to start a written sentence, and this list article's opening sentence starts with such. I suggest refactoring the opening sentence to read along the lines of "The U.S. state of Washington has 39 counties."
- Changed.
- The lead section is the lengthiest lead section I have witnessed in a featured list. Can it be split so that the lead summarizes the current state of counties in Washington and the balance placed into one or two sections? At minimum, History and Governance sections would house the majority of the lead content that is not about the current state of counties.
- I've split a government section
- That helped.
- "... unorganized Oregon Country, extending..." is a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Suggest rewording to detach the two wikilinks along the lines of "... Oregon Country, an unorganized territory extending..."
- That wouldn't be accurate, it's those two two counties that extended there, not the whole Oregon Country.
- Understood. Is there another creative way to reword to avoid a sea of blue then?
- I see some counties in the lead section are wikilinked while others are not. Why the inconsistency? Should not all counties be wikilinked (i.e. first mentions of each unique county but not subsequent mentions in prose to avoid WP:OVERLINK)?
- Links added
- FIPS codes, mentioned in prose and included in the table, are really only meaningful to the US government, the US Census Bureau, and a small contingent of readers that know what they are. Such are trivial and non-encyclopedic to the average reader. Further, I thought external links were strongly discouraged yet each county's FIPS code is an external link. If these links to the QuickFacts tables are absolutely necessary, embed each as inline citations in support of each county's population count within the "Population (2019)" column. The inline citation for the column heading is wrong anyway as it takes us to the QuickFacts of the state as a whole and doesn't verify the population of each county. We should avoid making readers have to search for a county upon landing at a QuickFacts page for the state to learn more or verify.
- This is built into the template that makes the tables and is actually required this way to produce the map and is consistent with all 50 county lists. Changing the template would affect all others. Content on Wikipedia need not be limited to what an "average reader" is already aware of.
- I won't stand in the way on the account of that being how the template was built. I ask that a solution be investigated post-FLC on how to revise the template so that external links are not embedded (instead output as inline citations based on a FIPS parameter) while still producing the maps.
- I don't see the need to mention the postal abbreviation for the state (or its FIPS code for same reasons above). If a reader wants to know the state's postal abbreviation, it can go to Washington (state).
- Postal code removed
- In the table, does "Area" mean total area (i.e. land water) or land area only? Change the heading title to "Total area" or "Land area" accordingly. Based on what I learned in preparing my next comment, I believe the answer is land area.
- Changed to land area
- The inline citation associated with the "Area" column takes readers to NACo's landing page, again requiring them to search for a county individually to learn more or verify. The QuickFacts profile for each county, which is already linked (externally rather than within an inline citation as previously mentioned) presents area (i.e. land area) in addition to the 2019 population and so much more. Building from the suggestion three bullets above, I further suggest you duplicate the ref from the "Population (2019)" column within the "Area" (or "Land area") column for each county.
- The point of a general ref and the FIPS link is to avoid duplicating refs as clutter.
- The References section features 36 duplicate refs of the four listed works that arguably creates the same amount of clutter that 39 individual county QuickFacts refs, which while appearing duplicate would actually each be slightly different. As alternate means to workaround this:
- Is there a census highlight table published by the US Census Bureau that presents the population counts and land areas of all states for comparison to each other so that a single ref can be shared between the "Population (2019)" and "Land area" columns?
- Is there a state-published source that lists all counties with their respective seats that can replace ref [11] in the "County seat" column header?
- Is there another state-published source that lists all counties with their respective years of establishment that can also replace ref [11] in the "Est." column header?
- Unfortunately I could not find any official sources that provide all of this on the same page. The unofficial ones with this together would be Whereig or Ballotpedia. Washington also makes its own population estimates, separate and slightly different from the census. Not even the Washington State Association of Counties actually has a place that lists all the counties, and the MRSC's list only has population. HistoryLink.org has historical profiles for each county, but again not presented together.
- In the "Formed from" column, should any or all of these be wikilinked, or is every county listed within already wikilinked under the first "County" column? Not sure if there is some defunct counties or counties straddling state lines within this column not mentioned in the first column.
- All listed are existing WA counties, except Furguson which does not have an article to link.
- Looking back at an FLC for List of municipalities in Ontario, we were advised that, for sortable tables, “anything that's linkable should be linked every time.” We were advised that, “Most, if not all recent FLs follow that paradigm.” Thus, wikilink every county in the column despite repetition, excluding Ferguson County.
- Done
- I trust the sum of all 2019 population counts equals the 2019 population count for the entire state. Is that correct? If so, add a final sortbottom row for the state to present its total 2019 population and land area. This would also provide an opportunity to salvage the QuickFacts inline citation for the state. If not correct, add two sortbottom rows that sum the population and land area within all counties in the first row and then present the state totals in the second row for comparison.
- Yes, the sums are accurate, added a bottom row for the state
- Thanks. Remove Olympia from the bottom row in favour of a null entry as it is not a county seat, and in the land area cell match formatting with that of county rows (add comma delimiter, add units, and add conversion).
- Noted that Olympia is both state capital and county seat, fixed area conversion
- The Former county names, Former counties, and Proposed counties sections that follow the list are very interesting. Each jumps straight into bullets however. Can each have an contextual sentence or two that introduces the bullets?
- I have no idea what to say other than "Some counties changed their names", "Some counties no longer exist in Washington". There is no overarching context that I'm aware of that would be anything more than a bland duplicative line.
- What about single one-liners such as:
- "Four counties in Washington have changed their names between 1849 and 1925.";
- "In the mid 1800s, eight former counties were established and subsequently disorganized, merged, dissolved, or split off into other territories."; and
- "_____ counties were proposed prior to or during the existence of Washington Territory while nine counties were proposed within the first 16 years of Washington's statehood."
- These are just quick ideas that you can adapt to properly suit.
- Added
- The External links section would be an appropriate place to include NACo's landing page in lieu of removing it from the "Area" column heading in favour of duplicated QuickFacts inline citations for each state introduced in the "Population (2019)" column.
- Linked in EL
This is my first pass of reviewing this list article. Notwithstanding the above comments, it has already shaped up quite nicely, no doubt and presumably building off of up to the 21 others county lists that already have FL status. Any further comments from a second pass will less in quantity. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Reywas92: I have replied to your responses. Thank you for your patience. Hwy43 (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Hwy43, I've made changes based on the last few comments. Reywas92Talk 20:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three additional minor comments.
- a
apply the abbreviation template to "FIPS" in the FIPS code column heading just like done for the Est. column header. Realize the acronym is introduced in prose but because it is used in the table this saves the reader from hunting for the acronym in the prose.
- Found some time today to do this myself.
This is the first time I have witnessed the Countytabletop and Countyrow templates. Are scope cols and scope rows already embedded in these templates to conform with MOS:ACCESS?
- Disregard. Found time today to look myself.
- Ref titles need to meet WP:DASH, so double check all refs to confirm proper implementation.
This concludes my second pass and don’t anticipate raising anything new beyond final discussion on the outstanding previous comments. The article has shaped up as a good list. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine, and the link-checker shows no issues.
One formatting concern exists, which is mentioned above: three refs – numbers 11, 42, and 53 – need en dashes to replace the hyphens in their titles. That is the only problem I found..Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]- Although there was no response here, a look at the article reveals that the one issue has been resolved, so I'm saying the source review was passed. Please do mention the resolution of the issue next time, though, as I could have marked this as taken care of sooner. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:07, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [15].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because the television series The Flash has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. It is similarly written and formatted as List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things, which I already got promoted to FL status. Looking forward to your comments and suggestions. - Brojam (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3 missing author
- for ref 15 adding "|url-access=subscription" might be helpful
- link for ref 40 not working for me (neither is 41?)
- ref 46 would make more sense as "Cohen, David S." (so "|last=Cohen" "|first=David S.")
- That's all I got. Formatting and reliability looks great. Aza24 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: All fixed. - Brojam (talk) 01:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media review
[edit]- I cannot access the file source for File:The Flash logo.png. Either fix that link or replace it with a new one that can be loaded.
- File:Grant Gustin at 2015 PaleyFest.jpg is adequately licensed.
Fix up the first image, and we'll be set with media usage. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SNUGGUMS: Link has been replaced. - Brojam (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That helps. Not sure whether I'll assess the prose, but either way, the media review now passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from GagaNutella
- The lead is well written, with good sources;
- There is no need for those two sources on the lead about the Guinness World Records. It is already stated below;
- Removed. - Brojam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim the caption for: "Grant Gustin is the series's most successful cast member in terms of awards, having won 7 times out of 28 nominations.";
- Done. - Brojam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- References from Syfy Wire, TV By The Numbers, Yahoo!, Saturn Award and Collider are not in italic;
- Since these are all website, they should be in italic per the template {{Cite web}}. - Brojam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 5: just let publisher=DC Comics (WP:CITEWEB). GagaNutellatalk 19:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed DC Entertainment but kept DC Comics as website since here we are talking about the website of the comic book publisher. - Brojam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GagaNutella: All your comments have been addressed above. - Brojam (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support congrats! GagaNutellatalk 20:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [16].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Charlize Theron is a South African and American actress. She has won many awards including Academy Award for Best Actress and Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Pedantically, a single actor can't win the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture - she was one of a number of people nominated (this also applies to the two entries on the table for this award and any other "ensemble" award - you need to note with whom she shared the nomination)
- "Theron appeared in Niki Caro's drama North Country, in the film she portrayed" - that comma should be a semi-colon
- "Theron performance in the film" - missing 's
- When sorting the Result column, it goes Won > Nominated > 3rd > 2nd. I think it should go Won > 2nd > 3rd > Nominated.
- Neither note is a full sentence, so they don't need full stops. Also, the second one needs a capital letter at the start.
- Think that's it from me. Great work once again, Cap! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude, Thanks for the comments. I have made these changes. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from The Squirrel Conspiracy
[edit]Excellent work. I couldn't find much to say here.
Image review: Photo is an own work by a photographer with a long history of valid contributions on Commons. No issues or concerns regarding the license.
Content review:
- The lead is very link heavy. I'd remove links to common terms like the three links in "biographical crime drama", "iron mine", and "Fox News", and consider also delinking "breakthrough role"
- You have two different notes labeled "[a]" in two different places - one in the infobox and the other in the column header. Consider changing this (either manually renaming one of the "[a}"s or moving the infobox note into the Notes level 2 header)
Please ping me when you've responded and want me to circle back. Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Squirrel Conspiracy, I have removed the links for common words. I'm afraid that I can't do anything about the note issue; this was talked about for a bit in January 2020 (Template talk:Infobox awards list#Automatically generated efn & References section) ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That was easy. Support. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from MWright96
That is all of the comments I have for this list. MWright96 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
Support Nice work! MWright96 (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 14 missing date
- That's all I could find so I went ahead and added it myself :) Fmt for citations looks good and I couldn't spot any questionable sources. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:37, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [17].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my honest opinion, Jack Nicholson is the greatest male actor, bar none. Fun fact: he is the most nominated male actor by the Academy. ~ HAL333 01:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975), which won Best Picture and garnered him the Academy Award for Best Actor." - needs a source
- "another western: Goin' South." - colon should be a comma
- "Nicholson was awarded the BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Supporting Role." - needs a source
- "He won the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture for his acting in Terms of Endearment (1983)." - needs a source
- "Prizzi's Honor (1985), for which Nicholson earned another Best Actor nomination from the Academy." - needs a source
- "His role as Francis Phelan in Ironweed (1987) garnered him yet another Oscar nomination for Best Actor." - guess ;-)
- "Hoffa, which was Danny DeVito's directorial debut." - needs a source
- "His next role in As Good as It Gets (1997) garnered him the Academy Award for Best Actor." - needs a source
- "His final film appearance was in How Do You Know (2010), reportedly retiring due to memory loss." => "His final film appearance was in How Do You Know (2010), after which he reportedly retired due to memory loss."
- Think that's it from me. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ChrisTheDude Done I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 16:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Looks good. Great work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Marking my place. Aza24 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would like locations for American Film Institute, Associated Press and Napa Valley Register
- I added the locations for the AP and AFI, but I have been told by other reviewers that adding a location when it is in the publication's name is redundant.. ~ HAL333 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if locations would be good for Bafta or Golden Globe awards, I think it's fine without but you may disagree
- I added the location for BAFTA because it has most of its operations at its headquarters in London. ~ HAL333 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Spotchecked random ones: 52, 33, 21, 10, 16, 69 – all good
- The HTML for your table is so nicely organized :)
- Thanks!. ~ HAL333 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is tempting to call Nicholson "one of the greatest actors of all time" but I'm not sure if the sources support that. The sources say "One of cinema’s truly iconic actors of the past fifty years" and "Jack Nicholson is regarded as one of the greatest actor's of his generation" so it's the "of all time" that concerns me. There is no doubt that Nicholson is great but I would rephrase to something closer to the sources perhaps something like "is widely considered to be among the greatest actors of his generation" – that being said, if you find better sources to support the claim, I'm cool with that as well. It looks like there are various lists (IMDB, The Delite, The Mystique) that could support your statement, not sure how reliable these lists in particular are though. Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aza24 Good point - my bias got the best of me. I appreciate the review. ~ HAL333 03:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, good work here. Pass for the source review Aza24 (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC) [18].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the 2020 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) Birdienest81 (talk) 08:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Comments
- You need citations for the two tables in the "Films with multiple nominations and awards" section.
- This issue came also during the FLC for Academy Award for Best Actor. User:Cowlibob said, "Number of nominations is implicitly verifiable by the main table." Furthermore, there are plenty of featured lists about the numerous accolades of film has received, and they have a total number of nominations and wins tally in the infobox which does not have citations regarding the total number figures a film has received (ex: List of accolades received by The Artist (film) or List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men).
- I would recommend following the precedent of past Academy Awards articles by making the lede three paragraphs. As in those lists, I would add a bit on the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards.
- I would have mentioned the Sci-Tech Awards in the intro if the ceremony did occur. However, it would not make sense to do so for this ceremony list due to three things. 1) AMPAS announced in 2018, that the ceremony this year would be held in June instead of February in order to accommodate the date change of the main ceremony from last Sunday in February to the second one. 2) This press release by AMPAS also mentioned that the
"techonologies honored do not represent achievements within a specific awards year".
3) The COVID-19 epidemic had forced the Academy to postpone the Scientific and Technical Awards indefinitely according to this article. So, it would be inappropriate to mention the Sci-Tech awards as they have not occurred and the Academy declared they will no longer correspond to an awards year anymore. If anything, the upcoming Sci-Tech awards would be more appropriate to include in the 93rd Oscars.
- I would have mentioned the Sci-Tech Awards in the intro if the ceremony did occur. However, it would not make sense to do so for this ceremony list due to three things. 1) AMPAS announced in 2018, that the ceremony this year would be held in June instead of February in order to accommodate the date change of the main ceremony from last Sunday in February to the second one. 2) This press release by AMPAS also mentioned that the
- You should wikilink "Nielsen ratings".
- Nielsen ratings was already wikilinked in the infobox and in the "Ratings and reception" section. I wikiklinked Nielsen to Nielsen Media Research in the second paragraph of the intro since I am referring to the company that is keeping track of the viewership.
This marked the earliest date on which the ceremony was held.
I would change "was" to "has been".
- Fixed: Changed "was" to "has been".
- Considering the precedent, I would also recommend adding a section on "Box office performance of nominated films" and including a table.
- Unfortunately, I do not have enough information from good quality and reputable sources to do a section named "Box office performance of nominations films" and make a substantial table similar to some previous FL Oscar ceremony lists. Previous I had been able to do this because Box Office Mojo had charts of yearly box office where I could filter information to get figures of nominated films prior to the date of the nominations announcement. However Box Office Mojo changed its website last October, and unfortunately they removed the aforementioned feature in its redesigned website and other Oscar-related figures pertaining to this year's awards. Therefore, I am unable to gather information to report on box office performance of films not nominated for Best Picture nor make a table like in some years. I understand precedent, but I cannot report on figures that are not verifiable simplicity within the list (like the nominations and wins totals) or through verified resources due to the policy of Wikipedia:No original research. I believe in some precedent, but if I don't have adequate amounts of reliable sources, I can only work within the bounds of what I have.
That's all I could notice. Looks good overall. ~ HAL333 17:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333:Done: I have responded to your comments. Thanks for your feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 09:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice work. ~ HAL333 18:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;More comments from me
|
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
|
---|
After that, we should be set. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Of course, and I now support this nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording "presenter of" and (especially) "introducer of" in the "Presenters" table (which is also missing a caption, so WP:ACCESS) is beyond awkward. You would never say "Actor X was the introducer of the Y segment." You would say "Actor X introduced the Y segment." It would be far more readable and natural to reword those entries to follow a format more like "Role: Presented the award for Best Support Actress and introduced Best Film nominee Y." —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Done: Changed "presenter(s)" to "presented" and "introducer" to "introduced", accordingly. I was initially hesitant to change due to precedent of previous ceremony, but I decided to go ahead after reviewing the featured list review of the 82nd Academy Awards to see why the things they were for the presenters box. For courtesy though, if any article is undergoing FAC or FLC review, please post comments before making changes.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and sure... I honestly had no idea it was undergoing such a review, though, and it's not listed on the actual article page (nor is there an edit notice). So not exactly sure how people, especially newer editors, are supposed to figure out that editing the article during a candidacy is somehow bad form. I'm not a newer editor and this is the first time anyone has brought that up. Is there a guideline on it somewhere? Because if so, that should at least be listed when people go to edit a page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I made a few small copyedits but don't see any other issues. Support Reywas92Talk 23:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Let's get this thing moving! Doing now Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't find any missing authors, dates or publishers – all look reliable. I personally prefer linking the publisher/work (New York Times, Hollywood Reporter etc.) every time, so if that's something you might consider it should be a pretty quick fix with the select all tool and command f. Either way this is not outstanding enough to prevent a Pass for source review. Good work here. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 23 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Harrias talk 09:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 2015, when I nominated the similar PCA Player of the Year award, there was not a full published list of winners for this award, so I had to leave it for another day. Now, that information is available, and so I present this list for your inspection. A cricket award, given to the best young player in English county cricket, as voted by their peers, this is modelled off the aforementioned list. As always, all comments and criticism invited. Harrias talk 09:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I made one small tweak which it was easier to just do than list here but couldn't find anything else so am happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
That's it for me. Oh, and "WikiCup review disclaimer &c." Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support looks good to me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been one for bugging coordinators, but looking at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Montreal/archive1, which got its third support three weeks after this list, I guess I should, so... @Giants2008 and PresN: if you are of the opinion that this nom is close to passing, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? Cheers! Harrias talk 10:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies: I was a bit cranky yesterday, this was unnecessary. Harrias talk 21:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Not many sources here so this should only take a second. Aza24 (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 2 missing date
- Added. Harrias talk 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 3 I believe Wisden (for Ref 7 as well) can be linked to Wisden Cricketers' Almanack
- There has been some debate about this in previous reviews, when I have been asked to delink it. That page is specifically about the book; the website is published by the same company, but includes different content. That said, I have linked it for the moment. Harrias talk 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see, I was admittedly unsure as well. The source review passes either way so do whatever you're most comfortable with. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been some debate about this in previous reviews, when I have been asked to delink it. That page is specifically about the book; the website is published by the same company, but includes different content. That said, I have linked it for the moment. Harrias talk 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These minor fixes and then easy pass. Aza24 (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Aza24, all done. Harrias talk 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers Aza24, all done. Harrias talk 13:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:34, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [20].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This has been nominated three times prior, twice failed due to lack of input and once i withdrew to work on the sources. I have reworked the sources to make my latest FL (Mexican National Tag Team Championship), I've done a round of copy editing and I've had the Guild of Copy Editors work through it as well. I believe this represents a very fine body of work both prose, table and source wise and hope this will get enough attention this time. I will happily commit to doing a FL review for each person providing feedback PLUS one, which I will initate in the next day or two. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*ChrisTheDude thank you for your great feedback. I believe I have addressed all your comments, please do double check my work. Also since I promised to do a review in return for all reviews, I would like you to pick which article I should do an FLC review for, I don't believe you have a nomination yourself in the list and I want to make it "dealers choice" then. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Very good article ~ HAL333 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias talk 07:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from Harrias
That's it from me. Harrias talk 12:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, all my concerns have been resolved, nice work. Harrias talk 07:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review:
- The formatting for the Duncan & Will source is all over the place; I was going to try to fix it but I can't be sure I'm doing it right. Ref 11, 12, 13, and 33 are e.g. "Duncan & Will 2000, p. 271.", but all of the other ones are e.g. "Duncan & Will (2000) page 390 "Karloff Lagarde 58/01/31 Mexico City, MEX"", except for ref 1, which is "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390, Chapter: "Mexico: EMLL NWA Welterweight Heavyweight Title [Lutteroth]"". You actually cite page 390 in 3 different formats as a result. I'd expect them all to be e.g. "Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390" (with a "p." instead of page, and no period at the end), maybe with the quotes you're adding to the back if you really want them, though make sure to have a period after the page number to separate out the quote in that case, e.g. Duncan & Will (2000) p. 390. "blah blah"
- Several other book sources are fully described in the references instead of short-style, which reads oddly as now everything is mixed. Consider moving all books to a "Sources" section, instead of only the 2 "General" books.
- This general/non-general split also causes issues in e.g. refs 9 and 10- full duplicated refs to the same book, with slightly different page numbers (actually, overlapping)
- In ref 3 and 5, you have the author as L.L. Staff- author fields are for named people only, and should be omitted if you only have "staff" as a byline.
- You're doing some odd things with magazine issues- using cite news for a magazine which then forces you to do "|id=issue 2072" instead of "|issue=2072", and results in odd placement/formatting of the issue number in the final citation.
- You don't really need to include incorporation marks in company names, e.g. ", Inc." or ", SA de CV"
- Not required, but consider using the "|trans-title=" parameter to give English translations of non-English titles.
- Didn't see any issues with the sources themselves. --PresN 22:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your input PresN I will get to work on the feedback today. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I addressed all issues. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [21].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Natalie Wood was an American actress known for her roles in Rebel Without a Cause, Splendor in the Grass, and West Side Story. This is a list which covers her film and television career. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
; Suggestions by Jimknut
|
Support — Jimknut (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- I endorse all of Jimknut's comments and don't really have anything further to add -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your comment, I've made changes per above. Cowlibob (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments from MWright96
MWright96 (talk) 11:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – MWright96 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Birdienest81
- There is unnecessary space between the word "Pichel" and the period in the first sentence.
- That's all I can find know. I will continue to proofread the list.
- --Birdienest81 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Birdienest81: Thanks for your review. Sorted above. Cowlibob (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 10:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support Well done. ~ HAL333 10:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The reliability and formatting of the sources look fine overall, and the link-checker shows no issues. The source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [22].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (e.g. bishops of Hong Kong, archbishops of Vancouver, Toronto, and Quebec), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Just a couple of things from me:
- "Newly-formed" in the lead needs a hyphen
- Notes which are not complete sentences (just the one for Hughes's first listing, I think) don't need a full stop.
- Note B is missing an s after an apostrophe
- Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: thanks very much for the swift feedback! I hope I've addressed it satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Fixed a typo found in the article; besides that, looks good to me. -- 0qd (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The only question I have is why bishop is capitalized in the John Hughes image caption and archbishop isn't.
Another well made list. Nice work. ~ HAL333 02:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: ah, that's because of MOS:JOBTITLES. Didn't find out about that myself until March this year (in this discussion). The first mention (capitalized) is the proper job title, while the latter one isn't. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. You learn something new everyday. ~ HAL333 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid list. ~ HAL333 02:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
[edit]Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be hesitant about including locations for refs 6 and 7 since you don't include them anywhere else. You don't put it in ref 26 for the same source anyways.
- Everything else looks good, consistent templates, formatting and reliability. Should be a quick pass if the locations are removed. Aza24 (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: removed both. I think you meant refs 7 and 8, because ref 6 (The Encyclopedia of New York City) is a book ref w/o a location parameter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, good catch. Keep up the good work with these lists, they are consistently concise, helpful and nicely formatted. Pass for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:39, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [23].[reply]
- Nominator(s): —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul2520 and I have been working on this list of library branches in Minnesota's largest library system for a few years. We both, but especially Paul, have journeyed all around the county to collect images of all 41 branches and have attempted to develop the most complete list in existence of the openings of the extant Hennepin County libraries. We are excited to work with any further comments and suggestions towards making this article a featured list, and appreciate all feedback. If promoted, we believe this would be the first List of library branches article to make FL status and hopefully serve as a useful template for future efforts to improve coverage of libraries worldwide. Thanks kindly! —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Review by Reywas92
- This is a very nice list, but it should be merged to Hennepin County Library. That is quite a short article and the lead content is duplicative, so a split is not at all warranted. I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN since there don't appear to be sources that cover the topic of branches rather than the library generally. NYC is the only other list of branches but that's a different animal.
- "the borders of" is extraneous
- "across 24 cities and towns" -> "in..."
- "located" is extraneous, readers know "in" is a locator adverb here
- "Four of the branches" -> "Four branches"
- Bloomington is missing wikilink
- Only the second Minneapolis in the table is linked; link all or only the first
- Notes column shouldn't be sortable
- Southdale: "between" requires an "and"
- North Regional's note is rather random: of course a public building would take a few years to go from proposal to construction completion
- Rewrite "In late 1800s, opened in Fletcher–Loring Flour Mill"
- and "Original 1889 was"
Reywas92Talk 07:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Reywas92! Helpful feedback. I've addressed most of your comments.
I'm still mulling over the North Regional note (I agree, it should be updated).Updated the note, per Benidt reference.- Re: the merge, nice idea! I will discuss with Bobamnertiopsis. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, thanks again for your review back in February. We recently worked through some additional feedback from The Rambling Man (see below). All your comments have now been addressed. While the Hennepin County Library article is still short, we've added additional context and references in the new List of Hennepin County Library branches § History section. Bobamnertiopsis and I found quite a few references via Newspapers.com mentioning the branches & branch expansion.
- I just wanted to follow-up to get any additional feedback. = paul2520 (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks very nice. Reywas92Talk 18:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, Reywas92. I'm trying to parse the next steps. Should your comments be rolled-up in a "Resolved comments" template like The Rambling Man's below? = paul2520 (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I would also suggest a merger, as the main article has very little additional content (other than the lead it essentially consists of a less-detailed list of locations). The merged article would still really be a list, though, so I don't see why the FLC couldn't continue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dank
- Yes, agreed that this is an attractive and useful list, and that the main article is so slight that it would be better to merge it with this, and that the merged article would be appropriate for WP:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - there seems to be a consensus among all the editors who have commented so far that this article and the main one on the library should be merged, but in six weeks nothing's been done about this. Are there any plans to merge.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi ChrisTheDude. Bobamnertiopsis and I have reason to believe the list is relevant still (see discussion here). I have some thoughts that I was about to write on Bobamnertiopsis' talk page, that I'll put here.
- How about we rename Hennepin County Library#Libraries to Hennepin County Library#Branches and move the middle paragraphs from List of Hennepin County Library branches to that page? We'd still have the complete, cited list with photographs and details, and the library page would then have more context to the branch system.
- Sorry for the delay! Courtesy pings to Reywas92 and Dank. = paul2520 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from TRM
[edit]Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 15:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
(WikiCup entry)
That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again so much for your review, The Rambling Man! Bobamnertiopsis fixed most of the suggestions, and I broke the lead into "proper lead" and a new History section (with additional context about the history of the branches). Do you have any other thoughts/comments? = paul2520 (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my comments addressed, looking good. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comments from ChrisTheDude
Apologies I completely forgot about this one. My comments now:
- Four sentences for the lead is far too short. You could probably simply merge the History section into the lead and just trim it a bit.
- Notes which are not complete sentences (eg "Renovated in 1988 and 2013.") should not have full stops.
- Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, ChrisTheDude. How did I do? [26]
- I didn't trim too much from the merged lead... any specific suggestions, if you think it should be condensed further? = paul2520 💬 14:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paul2520 I've added my support which (naturally) is contingent on a suitable source/image review. I think you have sufficient support on the content/layout/etc so just those reviews to go before this can be considered for promotion. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass
Doing now Aza24 (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cmts:
- The Bibliography looks good, I tweaked it around for consistency a little bit.
- Wow I really have nothing, consistent use of "cite news" and "cite web", consistent links to publishers and works, all reliable sources. Easy pass - Aza24 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [27].[reply]
- Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list, the DHL Fastest Lap Award, is an addendum to the List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap. The award is presented to the driver who sets the most fastest laps over the course of a Formula One season through a separate point system. I have recently redone the list and believe it meets the necessary criteria to become a featured list. MWright96 (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "the driver with the most fastest laps" - I know this is technically correct, but "most fastest" just reads weirdly to me, like a little kid saying something is "the most bestest" :-) Maybe change it to "the highest number of fastest laps"
- "there is a countback, of those who are tied the driver" - I would simply say "there is a countback and the driver"
- "the most second-fastest laps" - again I think "the highest number of" would work better
- In the table, what does the "won" column actually mean? Does it mean the race by which the driver had obtained an unassailable lead in terms of the number of fastest laps? Or something else? Whatever it means, I think it needs to be made clearer via a note above the table.
- That's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed all four points. MWright96 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: Have addressed all four points. MWright96 (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only noted two things:
- "Tiebreak" could be replaced with "tiebreaker". I have never heard that word used before, but it may be F1 semantics.
- It would be great if you could add a lede image of the trophy itself. You should be able to get through fair-use, but then again copyright is always a complicated pain.
- There are no suitable fair use images of the trophy at this moment. MWright96 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise it's a really good article. Nice job. ~ HAL333 21:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: Have replied where appropriate. MWright96 (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support ~ HAL333 14:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've sorted out the minor issues I found myself with this edit [28]. Cowlibob (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
[edit]Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about this, maybe ref 1 could have a "date" from the last updated date on the site?
- Date missing for ref 7
- Ref 25 missing author
- Would rather see Sky Sports linked in all the publishers, not just the first
- Everything else is formatting consistently and reliable, fix these things and easy pass. Aza24 (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: All of the above points have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: All of the above points have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- "The DHL Fastest Lap Award is given annually by the courier and Formula One global partner and logistics provider DHL..." I'd replace the first and it that sentence with a comma instead
- "DHL, the trophy's official naming patron,[3] first awarded it in 2007." I'd change this to 'First awarded in 2007 by DHL, the trophy's official naming patron, and then include the next sentence as part of this one.
That's all from me. NapHit (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @NapHit: Addressed both points. MWright96 (talk) 12:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! NapHit (talk) 13:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [29].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 19:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to find that Gable's filmography wasn't a FL - seemed like something someone would have done in 2008. He's a pretty notable actor, so I decided to give it a swing myself. ~ HAL333 19:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- Why is there a notes section in references.
- Consider archiving refs. (this might be useful)
- In references, don't add italic to Turner Classic Movies, Rotten Tomatoes, Stanford.edu, Oscars.
- That's it from me. Good work! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA Done I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Good work, as always. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA Done I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
WikiCup review
That's it for me. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Gable and Crawford in Strange Cargo (1940)
In the other captions the first names of the actresses are included, it would look consistent and nice to include it here as well.- Also, Grace Kelly and Crawford are not wikilinked in the picture captions, either link them all or none (they all appear in the lead).
- What's the reasoning behind the notes in the "Notes" column? Is there a systematic approach to what information should be included there?
- That's literally all I could think of. Nice work! Yakikaki (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yakikaki Done For the notes, I include any kind of credit (producer, music track, director, etc) and anything else notable. ~ HAL333 19:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply and Support from me, nicely done! Yakikaki (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – As with the other filmography FLC I just reviewed references for, the formatting and reliability of the sources appear up to snuff. The link-checker shows one issue: the original version of ref 22 is no longer working, and you'll need to switch the first link over to the archived one by changing the urlstatus parameter to dead. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Giants2008 I'm sorry - I don't think I did that correctly. ~ HAL333 18:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 16 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [30].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (e.g. bishops of Hong Kong, archbishops of Vancouver, Toronto, and Quebec), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Solid article. I do have a question though: should the dates be in dmy format since it's French Canada? ~ HAL333 16:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @HAL333: in these cases, I would think the language of an article would be the deciding factor, as opposed to its location (e.g. appropriate to use dmy for the Vancouver article in French). mdy is the prevalent format for English-speaking Canadians. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation", which I take to also cover things like date formats. The same section specifically references the use of Canadian English for an article on a Canadian topic. I would therefore say that this article should use the standard variety of English used in Canada as a whole (including date formats), on the grounds that (to the best of my knowledge) "French-Canadian English" isn't a thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to know. ~ HAL333 19:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Great work. 0qd (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Giants2008 and PresN: if you are of the opinion that this nom is close to passing, could I please trouble one of you to give this a dedicated source review? Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – something of a rarity for me, in that I can't find anything to nitpick. You're getting altogether too good at this... Harrias talk 15:45, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references look good, and the link-checker tool shows no issues, which isn't a surprise since all of the links are archived. Everything appears fine on the sourcing front. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 9 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [31].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A total of 48 lists of number-one country songs have now been successfully promoted to FL status, so here is what will hopefully be the 49th. In this particular year, a new record was set for the longest stay at number one by a female singer which would stand for close to 50 years....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from MEDUSA
- Ref two brings an error
- Billboard refs don't show website or publishers only retrieved
- stood until 2012, when Taylor Swift's → I see no reasons to add a comma
- |rowspan="5"|"[[King of the Road (song)|King Of The Road]]" → |rowspan="5"|"[[King of the Road (song)|King of the Road]]"
- That's it from me. Nice work btw. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 20:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
—Bloom6132 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support – all comments addressed. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks like they already got to everything. ~ HAL333 00:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Source review – The reliability of the referencing looks fine throughout, and the link-checker shows no issues (it doesn't seem to like the Billboard links, but the ones I checked worked).
One formatting issue exists: refs 1 and 11 need en dashes to replace the hyphens in their titles for style.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Giants2008: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With those quick fixes, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [32].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Mary Pickford was one of the most popular and innovative motion picture actresses in cinematic history. This timeline was created to highlight major events of her life and juxtapose them against the development of cinema and also events in the history of the United States. I have modeled this after the timelines of Jane Austen and Mary Wollstonecraft. I requested a peer review two months ago. It was never answered and is now closed. I'm now making it a featured list candidate. Please help if you can.Jimknut (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments and support from Chidgk1
Wow an enormous amount of work has been done on this.
- Made a few minor edits - feel free to revert
- Consider changing "June 9 – Charlotte Smith" to "June 9 – Sister Charlotte Smith". I guessed it was her sister but had to click the link to be 100% sure.
- I have changed this so it now reads, "Mary's sister, Charlotte Smith". I did the same for their brother's birth.
- Not sure this is a good idea - probably other reviewers have opinions - but as well as the date range how about adding her age range and/or a subtitle e.g. "1911-1915 Marriage and ...."
- No, I will keep it as it is. The timelines of Austen and Wollstonecraft only use the year range.
- Might be amusing to make some connection between Chaplin signing for $10,000 a week and then Pickford renegotiating her salary (or was it just coincidence?)
- It might be. However, I think information of that kind would be better in the main biography of Pickford.
If you have time could you take a quick look at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey and comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1. Assuming you know nothing about the subject it will be valuable if you could point out anything which is difficult to understand for a first time reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestions. I'll take a look at your list. Jimknut (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Further comments
|
- Comments by Birdienest81
This looks like a very comprehensive list. I just have two comments:
- Why is 1963 placed in between 1852 and 1869 in the years column? I'm assuming this is a typo.
- Oops! Changed.
- I was wondering if you could mention the 1st Academy Awards for 1929 underneath the cinema column since her husband Fairbanks hosted the ceremony.
- I'll consider it.
- Thanks. Jimknut (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Good work. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Shearonink
- What a HUGE amount of work. I've read through it once and will give it another go in a day or two but am inclined to support. Shearonink (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Shearonink (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - Pass Impressive work here (and a lot of references!) – working on source review now Aza24 (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Books
- Eyman should have an ISBN 13 (use the converter
- Fixed.
- I wouldn't link the locations (only some are linked now anyways) – that's rather unusual for FLs and FAs
- Unlinked.
- Make sure you link all the publishers, only some are linked atm
- All linked except for the Eyman book as there is no Wiki article for that publisher.
- I recognize you used "NY" since the city name is the same as the state name, but I would advise against this since you don't use abbreviations for other states. "New York, New York" is fine.
- All changed to "New York, New York"
- References
- Ref 8 could have a link to Eric Lott and Oxford University Press (needs ISBN 13 as well)
- Fixed.
- Ref 9 could have a link to Ellen Wood and Oxford University Press
- Fixed.
- Added some links to publishers and authors myself so as to not bother you with so much of this tedious task. Will keep checking refs later, looks good so far. Aza24 (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 16:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have look through the rest of the refs and have seen consistent formatting, it looks like a pass from me. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, again. Jimknut (talk) 03:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 3 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [33].[reply]
- Nominator(s): The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe that it meets all of the featured list criteria. Competitive Smash is the biggest it's ever been - current COVID-related hiccup not withstanding - and this is a comprehensive list of every major offline tournament held in the game thus far. The list itself should be easy to maintain going forward, as when events are happening, there's an average of 2 or 3 majors a month.
This is my first ever nomination at a Featured prose process. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments on the lead
|
- 1 on "List of major Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournaments" --PresN 16:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- With the title changed I am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
Nice job. ~ HAL333 17:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support My concerns have been adequately addressed. Hopefully you can find a good picture, but don't sweat if you can't. ~ HAL333 23:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Harrias talk 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments from Harrias
Overall a good quality list; mostly technical points to resolve. Note that I will claim WikiCup points for this review, and I would also appreciate it if you would consider taking a look over one of my own FLC nominations, such as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/PCA Young Player of the Year/archive1. Harrias talk 07:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support, all my concerns have been resolved. Harrias talk 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
; Comments from Medusa.
|
- Support — ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Lee Vilenski
May take some points for this review. On review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably these players have real names? Maybe worth mentioning this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a suitable link for "S-Tier" or simply "tier" in the caption? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it worth mentioning it's a fighting video game? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we split the lede up? MOS:LEDE has this as being 4 paragraphs max? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lede goes into quite a bit on how the prize money is different from other competitions - but the tables just show the full prize pool. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- On that end, is it worth adding the "winner's share?" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like something in the lede saying that the following lists cover S and A-Tier events, rather than just saying "major". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am responding to your comments in the order they appear above:
- 1. They do, but given names are not commonly used in esports. If you asked 100 competitive Smash fans who "Gavin Dempsey" or "Tyler Martins" were, most would have no idea; but ask them who "Tweek" and "Marss" were and they'd know. While WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles, I think the sentiment translates to this as well.
- 2. I had tier list linked in the lead. I've copied the link into the caption.
- 3. Done.
- 4. I've shortened the lead by removing most of the last paragraph and making one line a note.
- 5 and 6. For many tournaments, there are no reliable sources for prize pools. For those that do have sources, there is almost never a breakdown, or even a listing of the winner's take. Other Smash wikis assume the pool to be $10 per entrant, noting that it's an assumption (see here, note prize pool hover text), but that's not something I feel comfortable doing.
- 7. Done.
- The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And you'd be right not to assume! I'm happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:14, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - pass
- Doing now Aza24 (talk) 05:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Very thorough formatting throughout. The only thing I would like to see is more links to the articles for websites/publishers since you link some (Metacritic, Variety, VG247) and not others (Wired, Polygon, Twitter, Newsweek, Gamespot, Daily Esports etc) Aza24 (talk) 05:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: I think I've now linked to everything that has an article (Daily Esports does not) with the exception of Twitter and YouTube, since those aren't publishers per se, they're mediums. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call with excluding links to Twitter and YouTube, the sourcing looks great now. Sorry to bother you with the tedious task of linking publishers/websites! Anyways, pass for the source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aza24: I think I've now linked to everything that has an article (Daily Esports does not) with the exception of Twitter and YouTube, since those aren't publishers per se, they're mediums. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 3 August 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC) [34].[reply]
- Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer. He was won various awards including two Academy Awards, two British Academy Film Awards, and three Golden Globe Awards. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
|
- Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you ChrisTheDude! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 09:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Comments
But overall, another great article. ~ HAL333 04:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support ~ HAL333 15:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you HAL333! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Article is well written and looks better with some of the minor changes. --Jaberts123 (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Jaberts123! ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor – Motion Picture is overlinked in the lead.
- Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- " in fantasy romantic drama " I would say "the" in there, and this is a sea of blue, fantasy and romantic drama both linked butted up together.
- Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the film, Pitt played Cliff Booth, a war veteran skilled in hand-to-hand combat.[18]" this is interesting, but is it relevant to the awards?
- Removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Critics' Choice Awards" aren't they called "Critics' Choice Movie Awards"?
- Replaced. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a question really, you say he's won two Academy Awards (for example) but one of those was for the movie, not him individually. Isn't it misleading to say that he himself has won two Oscars?
- Done. Technically, he has two Oscars on his name. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- AFI Awards: they seem to award multiple "Movie of The Year Award"s, so perhaps call it "Movies of The Year Award"
- Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking on [show] in the infobox for "Awards and nominations" shows nothing...
- Added major awards. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 119 has a spaced hyphen, should be en-dash.
- Done. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, this is a WikiCup review by the way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, All done. Thanks for the comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the awards that were given to films he starred in are still there, not just his own personal awards. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, Removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Rambling Man, why remove the awards he won as a producer? The Academy Award rules for the Best Picture category clearly state that "this award goes to the producers of the film", and it applies to other awards like the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture – Drama that is presented to "the individual producer(s) accredited by the Producers Guild". So I think the award he won for producing 12 Years a Slave should stay. --Leo Mercury (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, the awards that were given to films he starred in are still there, not just his own personal awards. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment from Aoba47
[edit]- I unfortunately do not have time to do a full review, but I just wanted to comment that the caption for the infobox image should mention where it was taken and not just the year. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Aoba47, Added. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Source review from Aza24 – pass
|
---|
Doing now... Aza24 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everything else looks good from what I can see, very thorough – good work here. Aza24 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Pass for source review - Aza24 (talk) 05:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.